What do you think?
Rate this book
Win a free print copy of this book!
23 days and 03:26:42
100 copies available
U.S. only
The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love
Win a free print copy of this book!
23 days and 03:26:42
100 copies available
U.S. only
Everyone needs to love and be loved—even men. But to know love, men must be able to look at the ways that patriarchal culture keeps them from knowing themselves, from being in touch with their feelings, from loving.
In The Will to Change, bell hooks gets to the heart of the matter and shows men how to express the emotions that are a fundamental part of who they are—whatever their age, marital status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But toxic masculinity punishes those fundamental emotions, and it’s so deeply ingrained in our society that it’s hard for men to not comply—but hooks wants to help change that.
With trademark candor and fierce intelligence, hooks addresses the most common concerns of men, such as fear of intimacy and loss of their patriarchal place in society, in new and challenging ways. She believes men can find the way to spiritual unity by getting back in touch with the emotionally open part of themselves—and lay claim to the rich and rewarding inner lives that have historically been the exclusive province of women. A brave and astonishing work, The Will to Change is designed to help men reclaim the best part of themselves.
In The Will to Change, bell hooks gets to the heart of the matter and shows men how to express the emotions that are a fundamental part of who they are—whatever their age, marital status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But toxic masculinity punishes those fundamental emotions, and it’s so deeply ingrained in our society that it’s hard for men to not comply—but hooks wants to help change that.
With trademark candor and fierce intelligence, hooks addresses the most common concerns of men, such as fear of intimacy and loss of their patriarchal place in society, in new and challenging ways. She believes men can find the way to spiritual unity by getting back in touch with the emotionally open part of themselves—and lay claim to the rich and rewarding inner lives that have historically been the exclusive province of women. A brave and astonishing work, The Will to Change is designed to help men reclaim the best part of themselves.
208 pages, Paperback
First published December 30, 2003
5259 people are currently reading
91550 people want to read
About the author
bell hooks
156 books13.3k followersbell hooks (born Gloria Jean Watkins) was an African-American author, feminist, and social activist. Her writing focused on the interconnectivity of race, class, and gender and their ability to produce and perpetuate systems of oppression and domination. She published over thirty books and numerous scholarly and mainstream articles, appeared in several documentary films and participated in various public lectures. Primarily through a postmodern female perspective, she addressed race, class, and gender in education, art, history, sexuality, mass media and feminism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,799 reviews
May 7, 2016
Every man, and everyone who loves a man, should read this book. The Will to Change carries a revolution in its pages. bell hooks argues with fierce eloquence about how we socialize men to numb their emotions, to only express anger and rage. She conveys honest compassion by contending that we must socialize everyone to honor male pain so that men will treat others with loving kindness, lest they forever repress their feelings to live up to the awful standards of toxic masculinity. One of the several quotes I loved from this book:
"The reality is that men are hurting and that the whole culture responds to them by saying, 'Please do not tell us what you feel.' ... If we cannot heal what we cannot feel, by supporting patriarchal culture that socializes men to deny feelings, we doom them to live in states of emotional numbness. We construct a culture where male pain can have no voice, where male hurt cannot be named or healed."
Though I feel confident in my maleness, I have never identified as masculine. Because of traumatic events in my childhood, I always swore off aggression - an emotion society forces most men to identify with. bell hooks hones in on so many uncomfortable truths about how patriarchy slaughters men's emotional vitality: how both men and women tell boys not to cry, how men use violent pornography as a way to cope with and visualize their rage, and how we accept male stoicism even when men are capable of so much more. She never positions men as the enemy, rather, she calls on readers to tear down the patriarchy that hurts us all. Another wonderful quote from the book that resonated with so many of my experiences with men:
"Being 'vulnerable' is an emotional state many men seek to avoid. Some men spend a lifetime in a state of avoidance and therefore never experience intimacy. Sadly, we have all colluded with the patriarchy by faking it with men, pretending levels of intimacy and closeness we do not feel. We tell men we love them when we feel we have absolutely no clue as to who they really are. We tell fathers we love them when we are terrified to share our perceptions of them, our fear that if we disagree, we will be cast out, excommunicated. In this way we all collude with patriarchal culture to make men feel they can have it all, that they can embrace patriarchal manhood and still hold their loved ones dear. In reality, the more patriarchal a man is, the more disconnected he must be from feeling. If he cannot feel, he cannot connect. If he cannot connect, he cannot be intimate."
Overall, a fantastic read. Yes, we should empower women, and we should empower men - by socializing them to love and to care. If I could have every high school student in the United States read one book right now, it would be The Will to Change. I hope that we can all carry forth hooks's vision, by conducting more research on masculinity and by aiding men in getting in touch with their emotions. I will end this review with one final, inspirational quote:
"The work of male relational recovery, of reconnection, of forming intimacy and making community can never be done alone. In a world where boys and men are daily losing their way we must create guides, signposts, new paths. A culture of healing that empowers males to change is in the making. Healing does not take place in isolation. Men who love and men who long to love know this. We need to stand by them, with open hearts and open arms. We need to stand ready to hold them, offering a love that can shelter their wounded spirits as they seek to find their way home, as they exercise the will to change."
"The reality is that men are hurting and that the whole culture responds to them by saying, 'Please do not tell us what you feel.' ... If we cannot heal what we cannot feel, by supporting patriarchal culture that socializes men to deny feelings, we doom them to live in states of emotional numbness. We construct a culture where male pain can have no voice, where male hurt cannot be named or healed."
Though I feel confident in my maleness, I have never identified as masculine. Because of traumatic events in my childhood, I always swore off aggression - an emotion society forces most men to identify with. bell hooks hones in on so many uncomfortable truths about how patriarchy slaughters men's emotional vitality: how both men and women tell boys not to cry, how men use violent pornography as a way to cope with and visualize their rage, and how we accept male stoicism even when men are capable of so much more. She never positions men as the enemy, rather, she calls on readers to tear down the patriarchy that hurts us all. Another wonderful quote from the book that resonated with so many of my experiences with men:
"Being 'vulnerable' is an emotional state many men seek to avoid. Some men spend a lifetime in a state of avoidance and therefore never experience intimacy. Sadly, we have all colluded with the patriarchy by faking it with men, pretending levels of intimacy and closeness we do not feel. We tell men we love them when we feel we have absolutely no clue as to who they really are. We tell fathers we love them when we are terrified to share our perceptions of them, our fear that if we disagree, we will be cast out, excommunicated. In this way we all collude with patriarchal culture to make men feel they can have it all, that they can embrace patriarchal manhood and still hold their loved ones dear. In reality, the more patriarchal a man is, the more disconnected he must be from feeling. If he cannot feel, he cannot connect. If he cannot connect, he cannot be intimate."
Overall, a fantastic read. Yes, we should empower women, and we should empower men - by socializing them to love and to care. If I could have every high school student in the United States read one book right now, it would be The Will to Change. I hope that we can all carry forth hooks's vision, by conducting more research on masculinity and by aiding men in getting in touch with their emotions. I will end this review with one final, inspirational quote:
"The work of male relational recovery, of reconnection, of forming intimacy and making community can never be done alone. In a world where boys and men are daily losing their way we must create guides, signposts, new paths. A culture of healing that empowers males to change is in the making. Healing does not take place in isolation. Men who love and men who long to love know this. We need to stand by them, with open hearts and open arms. We need to stand ready to hold them, offering a love that can shelter their wounded spirits as they seek to find their way home, as they exercise the will to change."
April 14, 2015
I have profound respect for bell hooks. She is and will probably always be one of the most clear minded and insightful feminist theorists for years to come. Her works and lectures can be both mind blowing and humbling.
And a book like this is important because men need a better understanding of their place in the movement as allies and we need to be reminded at times that they can and should be better.
That being said, it was clear that this book was going to be far more likely to appeal to a male audience. I thus found it problematic that hooks did not use this golden opportunity to extrapolate on just why women would be hesitant to trust men, let alone let them into a feminist space (one that so many women before us have bled, died, and gone to jail for, I should add).
Men might be harmed by patriarchy in that they lose their potential for self-actualization, mind and soul. It is indisputably a lower quality of life.
But women will continue to lose their actual lives through the systemic violence that men perpetuate at the hands of male relatives, friends, and lovers. Being conditioned and socialized into the role of an abuser does not negate one's actions and the ensuing accountability. Men, should they be allies, are responsible for the actions of both themselves as individuals and themselves as an oppressive social class. hooks briefly hints at the importance of this in that men have to be open to criticism from women and to consistently check themselves. But I would add that they also have to criticize each other out and actively seek to disrupt the old boy system that allows so many men to get away with sexual violence and misogyny. It is one thing to choose never to buy sex or to consume pornography as an individual man. Or to never coerce his wife/partner/lover into sex. But it is another to actively stand against it and condemn any man (including friends and family members) who would.
The crux of feminism is not to get along better with men. It is, and always will be, about us women learning to love each other; to defend and to affirm each other; to realize that the love we can have for each other can be just as, if not more profound than any relationship we can have with a man.
I think we already empathize a lot with men, contrary to what hooks asserts. We have fallen into empathy traps and faced hard betrayal by alleged male allies in activist spaces. Time and time again we have believed that "genuine care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect, and trust" can "serve as the seductive catalyst for change" (p. 178). If we just loved him enough, he can change.
Men need to change. Men can change. There are good men out there who live to testify that men can be better.
But the first thing they need to understand is that women have all the reasons not to trust them. And they very much have every right to be angry.
And a book like this is important because men need a better understanding of their place in the movement as allies and we need to be reminded at times that they can and should be better.
That being said, it was clear that this book was going to be far more likely to appeal to a male audience. I thus found it problematic that hooks did not use this golden opportunity to extrapolate on just why women would be hesitant to trust men, let alone let them into a feminist space (one that so many women before us have bled, died, and gone to jail for, I should add).
Men might be harmed by patriarchy in that they lose their potential for self-actualization, mind and soul. It is indisputably a lower quality of life.
But women will continue to lose their actual lives through the systemic violence that men perpetuate at the hands of male relatives, friends, and lovers. Being conditioned and socialized into the role of an abuser does not negate one's actions and the ensuing accountability. Men, should they be allies, are responsible for the actions of both themselves as individuals and themselves as an oppressive social class. hooks briefly hints at the importance of this in that men have to be open to criticism from women and to consistently check themselves. But I would add that they also have to criticize each other out and actively seek to disrupt the old boy system that allows so many men to get away with sexual violence and misogyny. It is one thing to choose never to buy sex or to consume pornography as an individual man. Or to never coerce his wife/partner/lover into sex. But it is another to actively stand against it and condemn any man (including friends and family members) who would.
The crux of feminism is not to get along better with men. It is, and always will be, about us women learning to love each other; to defend and to affirm each other; to realize that the love we can have for each other can be just as, if not more profound than any relationship we can have with a man.
I think we already empathize a lot with men, contrary to what hooks asserts. We have fallen into empathy traps and faced hard betrayal by alleged male allies in activist spaces. Time and time again we have believed that "genuine care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect, and trust" can "serve as the seductive catalyst for change" (p. 178). If we just loved him enough, he can change.
Men need to change. Men can change. There are good men out there who live to testify that men can be better.
But the first thing they need to understand is that women have all the reasons not to trust them. And they very much have every right to be angry.
January 20, 2009
bell hooks defines this project as an attempt to love men enough to understand how patriarchy affects them, and understand how their pain can help them transform and challenge patriarchy. For me it was a profound experience reading this because it touched on so many aspects of my life as a male, from childhood, to school, to sex and relationships, to friendships, etc. It allowed me to see old memories in new ways, and understand that my feelings of pain, confusion and shame were a result of the violent circumstances that I was subjected to growing up in this culture.
In the past I had "understood" patriarchy as something that primarily only affected women, and saw my job mostly as limiting the damage done to the women in my life and organizing. bell hooks pushed me to look inside myself first and foremost and see how this system has terrorized me personally, and how challenging patriarchy is necessary for my own liberation, as well as the liberation of all men, and everybody.
What struck me most significantly was the idea that patriarchy is all the time enforced by violence, and that men are taught through violence to reject their emotions and become cold-blooded and distant, which allows them to commit violence on others.
"Violence is boyhood socialization. The way we 'turn boys into men' is through injury... We take them away from their feelings, from sensitivity to others. The very phrase 'be a man' means suck it up and keep going. Disconnection is not fallout from traditional masculinity. Disconnection is masculinity."
I could think of hundreds or thousands of times that I've felt this threat of violence keeping me within the shallow emotionless world of patriarchal masculinity. Most often it looks like jokes, put-downs, humiliation, scorn, and exclusion, but violence is at the heart of the matter. In fact, middle school and high school in retrospect look like a 7 year-long gauntlet of violent social training.
Learning to express the pain I've felt without shame, and wield my anger not against myself (or others) but against patriarchal society, isn't something that can change overnight. But bell hooks' wisdom has opened up new possibilities for me and for all men, and it's up to us to take the initiative, educate ourselves, get in touch with our own emotions, our own human-ness and connection to others in a non-dominating way, and work together in love and resistance. We don't just owe it to women, trans and genderqueer folks, we owe it to ourselves.
"Communities of resistance should be places where people can return to themselves more easily, where the conditions are such that they can heal themselves and recover their wholeness."
In the past I had "understood" patriarchy as something that primarily only affected women, and saw my job mostly as limiting the damage done to the women in my life and organizing. bell hooks pushed me to look inside myself first and foremost and see how this system has terrorized me personally, and how challenging patriarchy is necessary for my own liberation, as well as the liberation of all men, and everybody.
What struck me most significantly was the idea that patriarchy is all the time enforced by violence, and that men are taught through violence to reject their emotions and become cold-blooded and distant, which allows them to commit violence on others.
"Violence is boyhood socialization. The way we 'turn boys into men' is through injury... We take them away from their feelings, from sensitivity to others. The very phrase 'be a man' means suck it up and keep going. Disconnection is not fallout from traditional masculinity. Disconnection is masculinity."
I could think of hundreds or thousands of times that I've felt this threat of violence keeping me within the shallow emotionless world of patriarchal masculinity. Most often it looks like jokes, put-downs, humiliation, scorn, and exclusion, but violence is at the heart of the matter. In fact, middle school and high school in retrospect look like a 7 year-long gauntlet of violent social training.
Learning to express the pain I've felt without shame, and wield my anger not against myself (or others) but against patriarchal society, isn't something that can change overnight. But bell hooks' wisdom has opened up new possibilities for me and for all men, and it's up to us to take the initiative, educate ourselves, get in touch with our own emotions, our own human-ness and connection to others in a non-dominating way, and work together in love and resistance. We don't just owe it to women, trans and genderqueer folks, we owe it to ourselves.
"Communities of resistance should be places where people can return to themselves more easily, where the conditions are such that they can heal themselves and recover their wholeness."
January 11, 2024
I have mixed feelings about this book.
This is the second book I’ve read from bell hooks. The first, All About Love, was a revelation. I re-read it 3 times. I bought copies for friends. After seeing the title The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love, I immediately purchased a copy, excited to absorb more of hooks’s wisdom.
Let’s begin with the good: hooks presents a scathing critique of patriarchy. She outlines the ways it harms men, from emotional repression to higher rates of suicide and depression and “soul death.” Many passages resonated with me:
“There is only one emotion that patriarchy values when expressed by men; that emotion is anger.” (p. 7)
“No male successfully measured up to patriarchal standards without engaging in an ongoing practice of self-betrayal.” (p. 12)
“Boys learn to cover up grief with anger; the more troubled the boy, the more intense the mask of indifference. Shutting down emotionally is the best defense when the longing for connection must be denied.” (p. 50)
“Disconnection is not fallout from traditional masculinity. Disconnection *is* masculinity.” (p. 61)
“Workaholism is the most common addiction in men because it is usually rewarded and not taken seriously as detrimental to their emotional well-being.” (p. 158)
As someone assigned male at birth, I’ve often struggled to feel comfortable expressing my emotions. Much of the work I’ve done as an adult has been to reconnect with my body and allow myself to hear and express my own feelings. These quotes and many others resonated with me and encouraged me to continue that self work.
hooks eloquently explains how patriarchy harms us all: it spares no one, no matter their gender.
Now, onto the bad: past the first few chapters, the book is extremely repetitive. I did not learn much new. A book half this length could have twice the impact.
In attempting to counter the popular feminist narrative (of 2005) that men are all-powerful, hooks portrays men as eternally repressed and out of touch with their emotions, painting a picture at odds with my personal experience, which includes many loving, caring, emotionally-aware men.
Her view of parenting and dating is heteronormative. There is only brief reference to the impact of patriarchy in gay culture. No reference at all is made to trans people. Trans men lead very different lives from cis men and many trans men are uniquely poised to help further the dialogue about what positive masculinity can look like and how to manifest it. The book’s omissions result in centering cis, straight men yet again.
When discussing families, hooks most often assumes a monogamous, heterosexual couple. Some discussion is made of single-mother homes, usually in the context of women furthering patriarchy through abuse of their sons. Single-father homes are not discussed. Non-monogamous relationships, communal living, and other queer family arrangements are not discussed, again missing the chance to explore a radically different and less rigid vision of a post-patriarchal future.
Late in the book, she claims, “anyone who has a false self must be dishonest. People who learn to lie to themselves and others cannot love because they are crippled in their capacity to tell the truth and therefore unable to trust.” (p. 154) This completely ignores closeted trans and queer people who may not be able to be fully honest and transparent with people out of concern for their own safety, as well as people who have not reached a point where they feel comfortable coming out to themselves.
In many chapters, hooks presents bold claims without citing sources, leading me to repeatedly annotate, “is this true?” in the margins. Examples:
“Again and again children hear the message from mass media that when it comes to sex, ‘he’s gotta have it.’ Adults may know better, from their own experience, but children become true believers. They think that men will go mad if they cannot act sexually. This is the logic that produces what feminist thinkers call ‘a rape culture.’” (p. 78)
“For boys this issue of control begins with the mother’s response to his penis; usually she does not like it and she does not know what to do with it. Her discomfort with his penis communicates that there is something inherently wrong with it.” (p. 80)
“The popularization of gangsta rap, spearheaded by white male executives in the music industry, gave a public voice to patriarchy and women-hating.” (p. 129)
“If all men were in touch with primal positive passion, the categories of gay and straight would lose their charged significance.” (p. 183)
At a few points in the book, hooks blames pornography and ‘excessive’ (e.g. non-monogamous) sex for furthering and reinforcing patriarchy. This may often be true, but porn and sex can also act as liberatory tools for men who have been taught to feel ashamed of their bodies. Instead of exploring the potentially positive uses of porn and non-monogamous, consensual sex, hooks casts them as universally negative. She fails to imagine a world in which individuals can be fully loving and devoted to a partner and still explore fulfilling sexual relationships with others. Even her use of the phrase “dominator culture”, though apt, overlooks people who engage in consensual dom-sub play in BDSM. Her tone veers uncomfortably close to slut-shaming.
In fact, at many points in the book, bell hooks seems to take a tremendous leap from progressive leftism to conservative fundamentalism, railing against Harry Potter, The Incredible Hulk, Power Rangers, The Matrix, sex, pornography, rap music, and more.
I admire what bell hooks attempted to do in The Will to Change, but she paints with too broad a brush, ultimately reinforcing many of the harmful stereotypes and roles prescribed by patriarchy which she tries so dutifully to avoid.
This is the second book I’ve read from bell hooks. The first, All About Love, was a revelation. I re-read it 3 times. I bought copies for friends. After seeing the title The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love, I immediately purchased a copy, excited to absorb more of hooks’s wisdom.
Let’s begin with the good: hooks presents a scathing critique of patriarchy. She outlines the ways it harms men, from emotional repression to higher rates of suicide and depression and “soul death.” Many passages resonated with me:
“There is only one emotion that patriarchy values when expressed by men; that emotion is anger.” (p. 7)
“No male successfully measured up to patriarchal standards without engaging in an ongoing practice of self-betrayal.” (p. 12)
“Boys learn to cover up grief with anger; the more troubled the boy, the more intense the mask of indifference. Shutting down emotionally is the best defense when the longing for connection must be denied.” (p. 50)
“Disconnection is not fallout from traditional masculinity. Disconnection *is* masculinity.” (p. 61)
“Workaholism is the most common addiction in men because it is usually rewarded and not taken seriously as detrimental to their emotional well-being.” (p. 158)
As someone assigned male at birth, I’ve often struggled to feel comfortable expressing my emotions. Much of the work I’ve done as an adult has been to reconnect with my body and allow myself to hear and express my own feelings. These quotes and many others resonated with me and encouraged me to continue that self work.
hooks eloquently explains how patriarchy harms us all: it spares no one, no matter their gender.
Now, onto the bad: past the first few chapters, the book is extremely repetitive. I did not learn much new. A book half this length could have twice the impact.
In attempting to counter the popular feminist narrative (of 2005) that men are all-powerful, hooks portrays men as eternally repressed and out of touch with their emotions, painting a picture at odds with my personal experience, which includes many loving, caring, emotionally-aware men.
Her view of parenting and dating is heteronormative. There is only brief reference to the impact of patriarchy in gay culture. No reference at all is made to trans people. Trans men lead very different lives from cis men and many trans men are uniquely poised to help further the dialogue about what positive masculinity can look like and how to manifest it. The book’s omissions result in centering cis, straight men yet again.
When discussing families, hooks most often assumes a monogamous, heterosexual couple. Some discussion is made of single-mother homes, usually in the context of women furthering patriarchy through abuse of their sons. Single-father homes are not discussed. Non-monogamous relationships, communal living, and other queer family arrangements are not discussed, again missing the chance to explore a radically different and less rigid vision of a post-patriarchal future.
Late in the book, she claims, “anyone who has a false self must be dishonest. People who learn to lie to themselves and others cannot love because they are crippled in their capacity to tell the truth and therefore unable to trust.” (p. 154) This completely ignores closeted trans and queer people who may not be able to be fully honest and transparent with people out of concern for their own safety, as well as people who have not reached a point where they feel comfortable coming out to themselves.
In many chapters, hooks presents bold claims without citing sources, leading me to repeatedly annotate, “is this true?” in the margins. Examples:
“Again and again children hear the message from mass media that when it comes to sex, ‘he’s gotta have it.’ Adults may know better, from their own experience, but children become true believers. They think that men will go mad if they cannot act sexually. This is the logic that produces what feminist thinkers call ‘a rape culture.’” (p. 78)
“For boys this issue of control begins with the mother’s response to his penis; usually she does not like it and she does not know what to do with it. Her discomfort with his penis communicates that there is something inherently wrong with it.” (p. 80)
“The popularization of gangsta rap, spearheaded by white male executives in the music industry, gave a public voice to patriarchy and women-hating.” (p. 129)
“If all men were in touch with primal positive passion, the categories of gay and straight would lose their charged significance.” (p. 183)
At a few points in the book, hooks blames pornography and ‘excessive’ (e.g. non-monogamous) sex for furthering and reinforcing patriarchy. This may often be true, but porn and sex can also act as liberatory tools for men who have been taught to feel ashamed of their bodies. Instead of exploring the potentially positive uses of porn and non-monogamous, consensual sex, hooks casts them as universally negative. She fails to imagine a world in which individuals can be fully loving and devoted to a partner and still explore fulfilling sexual relationships with others. Even her use of the phrase “dominator culture”, though apt, overlooks people who engage in consensual dom-sub play in BDSM. Her tone veers uncomfortably close to slut-shaming.
In fact, at many points in the book, bell hooks seems to take a tremendous leap from progressive leftism to conservative fundamentalism, railing against Harry Potter, The Incredible Hulk, Power Rangers, The Matrix, sex, pornography, rap music, and more.
I admire what bell hooks attempted to do in The Will to Change, but she paints with too broad a brush, ultimately reinforcing many of the harmful stereotypes and roles prescribed by patriarchy which she tries so dutifully to avoid.
February 1, 2022
I honestly do not know how to talk about bell hooks. This is only the second book by her that I've read, and my reaction to the first one, Feminism is for Everybody, wasn't a favourable one. I was naive and approached it with all sorts of wrong expectations and honestly, the book wasn't palatable. But I've watched countless interviews of her over the years, because she has such a soothing voice, it's almost as if she is cooing even when she's taking someone down (like that one interview in which she defended Cornel West's critique of Ta-Nehisi Coates and then criticized Ta-Nehisi coates herself in way I can only call savage, and yet it's so eloquent.) It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that this book changed my perspective on many things.
Despite my several claims over the years of patriarchy being harmful to men and putting them in a box, I immediately shutdown when cis-men actually open up around me and bare their hearts. It's terrifying, it's new each time and I do not know how to react. And I've lost count of the number of times I've secretly wished harm on the men around me, because even though I put up a brave front, I'm perpetually terrified that they'll turn out to be violent. And with a lot of these men, I don't even have justifiable reasons for believing so. It's my own internalised stupid patriarchy-based distrust that stems from trauma. Yes, I'm such a hypocrite. I'm now determined to learn though. To trust and love men. While reading this book, I called some of my cis-male friends and apologized for being cold towards them or shutting them down whenever they tried to receive any emotional support from me. And that in itself was a revelation because they were so forgiving and so delighted. I probably need to make more calls that I feel way too awkward about now, but I'll get there.
I will be reading a lot more of bell hooks this year, and I'm certain it's going to be memorable, life-changing as well as life-affirming.
Despite my several claims over the years of patriarchy being harmful to men and putting them in a box, I immediately shutdown when cis-men actually open up around me and bare their hearts. It's terrifying, it's new each time and I do not know how to react. And I've lost count of the number of times I've secretly wished harm on the men around me, because even though I put up a brave front, I'm perpetually terrified that they'll turn out to be violent. And with a lot of these men, I don't even have justifiable reasons for believing so. It's my own internalised stupid patriarchy-based distrust that stems from trauma. Yes, I'm such a hypocrite. I'm now determined to learn though. To trust and love men. While reading this book, I called some of my cis-male friends and apologized for being cold towards them or shutting them down whenever they tried to receive any emotional support from me. And that in itself was a revelation because they were so forgiving and so delighted. I probably need to make more calls that I feel way too awkward about now, but I'll get there.
I will be reading a lot more of bell hooks this year, and I'm certain it's going to be memorable, life-changing as well as life-affirming.
March 29, 2025
Men’s Addiction to Patriarchy…
Preamble:
--As someone who went through Joe Rogan’s podcast/combat sports/“free market” economics/“New Atheism”, etc. and still experience these environments at the gym, I could write a dissertation on the cacophony that deters men from class consciousness/anti-war/nurturing relationships.
--This is far from bell hooks’ personal background, so her 2003 book’s applicability is revealing:
i) Roots in black feminist critique of patriarchy/white bourgeois feminism (1981’s Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism)
ii) Applies this to how patriarchy stunts men
iii) Ties this to war culture
--While hooks uses other pop culture references, I’ll be referring to a recent and ultimate example: Marvel’s The Punisher TV series…
Highlights:
1) Boyhood Disconnection:
--hooks fills a gap in mainstream feminism by considering how patriarchy also holds back men from healthy relationships/development.
--Boys are taught:
i) Disconnection/suppression of emotions: rather than verbally communicating emotions
ii) Acting out with anger: “boys will be boys”; hooks references Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them:
a) Trauma-normalizing:
--Jordan Peterson’s 2018 best-selling self-help book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has direct parenting instructions on disciplining infants (before the age of 4) to best fit into the meritocratic hierarchy:
…Opportunism/scapegoating is reactionary strategy 101; another obvious example: with liberalism (cosmopolitan capitalism) smiling at the status quo “progress” (and sabotaging leftist critiques), Trump fills the vacuum by acknowledging the symptoms (“American carnage”/“fake news”/“deep state”/“Big Pharma”/“military industrial complex”, etc.), only to scapegoat the vulnerable and accelerate the crises: The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump
b) Trauma-informed:
--Gabor Maté’s 2022 The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture directly challenges Peterson’s parenting instructions, instead focusing on nurturing self-authenticity.
…There are so many links between the above and research on addiction/depression/violence etc.
-Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression - and the Unexpected Solutions
-In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction
-The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit
--Back to hooks' book: she also mentions how women can be lured into re-enforcing patriarchy, from parenting “boys will be boys” to bourgeois feminism’s “equal opportunity” (to participate in capitalism’s exploitation and addictions including workaholism).
--With male workers’ “provider” role challenged by competition/automation, there is indeed a (patriarchal) “masculinity crisis”. We should add Graeber’s Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, which debunks the patriarchal image of “working class” as male factory workers (covering up the actual majority, i.e. care work; also see Folbre’s The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values).
--Additional tools:
i) Materialist anthropology lens on the roots of patriarchy: Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding
ii) As hooks cites numerous social science/psychology works, I’m reminded of the lack of rigour in these fields; to level up our tools, see:
-Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks
-I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That
2) War Culture:
--With books analyzing identity, I always pay attention to how class analysis is addressed; hooks mentions:
i) The Punisher symbol has become popular amongst US police/military.
ii) The Punisher character was meant to be an anti-hero, a marine (Frank Castle) who lost his family back home and thus brings the foreign battlefield back into civilian life as a vigilante (the Punisher) with extreme tactics (even by the standards of other superhero vigilantes).
iii) The TV series transformed the comic (more fictional) into live action reality, with exceptionally violent scenes (since the protagonist is a soldier rather than a superhero with quirky superpowers).
iv) The TV series’ storyline is the Punisher untangling a conspiracy within the “War on Terror” (what a mess given our current state of social media conspiracies).
v) In the end, justice prevails to expose the “bad apples” instead of questioning the entire premise of the “War on Terror”/US imperialism, the costs of empire even on its own citizens (working-class men sent to die abroad for the profits of chicken-hawk politicians/merchants-of-death capitalists; returning with PTSD; homeless veterans). As always, the lessons from the most decorated US marine in the real world are forgotten: War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier
vi) There is constant tension portraying such a violent anti-hero as the protagonist. Like all such superhero stories, a fantasy world must to be constructed where vigilante violence is valued/noble/the only option. However, the Punisher’s methods/story are so “real” and extreme.
The fictional antagonists must be even worse.
vii) There were many scenes displaying Frank Castle's mental illness; his extreme isolation, his reoccurring nightmares/PTSD (even attending a veterans group therapy), his addiction to violence, etc.
viii) In order for the series to continue, for the Punisher to continue, Frank Castle's addiction must continue. The fantasy world that justifies the Punisher must continue. There cannot be healing.
...If you want to see visceral depictions of these contradictions, there are a bunch of fan-made music videos of the TV series with millions of views. Examples (yes, violent graphics but not age-restricted on youtube): "Ashes", "So Far", Where are My Feelings?, etc.
…In the real world, I’m reminded of how death squad members became the worse addicts in Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here: The United States, Central America, and the Making of a Crisis
…see comments below for rest of the review…
Preamble:
--As someone who went through Joe Rogan’s podcast/combat sports/“free market” economics/“New Atheism”, etc. and still experience these environments at the gym, I could write a dissertation on the cacophony that deters men from class consciousness/anti-war/nurturing relationships.
--This is far from bell hooks’ personal background, so her 2003 book’s applicability is revealing:
i) Roots in black feminist critique of patriarchy/white bourgeois feminism (1981’s Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism)
ii) Applies this to how patriarchy stunts men
iii) Ties this to war culture
--While hooks uses other pop culture references, I’ll be referring to a recent and ultimate example: Marvel’s The Punisher TV series…
Highlights:
1) Boyhood Disconnection:
--hooks fills a gap in mainstream feminism by considering how patriarchy also holds back men from healthy relationships/development.
--Boys are taught:
i) Disconnection/suppression of emotions: rather than verbally communicating emotions
ii) Acting out with anger: “boys will be boys”; hooks references Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them:
[...] neglect is more common than abuse: more kids are emotionally abandoned than are directly attacked, physically or emotionally.--This stunting of healthy emotional/social development is echoed in many analyses of today’s mental health crisis published after hook's 2003 book. Particularly interesting is contrasting:
a) Trauma-normalizing:
--Jordan Peterson’s 2018 best-selling self-help book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has direct parenting instructions on disciplining infants (before the age of 4) to best fit into the meritocratic hierarchy:
It is the primary duty of parents to make their children socially desirable. That will provide the child with opportunity, self-regard, and security. It’s more important even than fostering individual identity.--Peterson lures readers in by acknowledging symptoms of social illness (“suffer”/“suffering” appear 139 times in the book!), but immediately scapegoats the drivers of “chaos” (blaming leftism/feminism/science) and re-enforces “life is suffering”.
…Opportunism/scapegoating is reactionary strategy 101; another obvious example: with liberalism (cosmopolitan capitalism) smiling at the status quo “progress” (and sabotaging leftist critiques), Trump fills the vacuum by acknowledging the symptoms (“American carnage”/“fake news”/“deep state”/“Big Pharma”/“military industrial complex”, etc.), only to scapegoat the vulnerable and accelerate the crises: The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump
b) Trauma-informed:
--Gabor Maté’s 2022 The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture directly challenges Peterson’s parenting instructions, instead focusing on nurturing self-authenticity.
…There are so many links between the above and research on addiction/depression/violence etc.
-Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression - and the Unexpected Solutions
-In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction
-The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit
--Back to hooks' book: she also mentions how women can be lured into re-enforcing patriarchy, from parenting “boys will be boys” to bourgeois feminism’s “equal opportunity” (to participate in capitalism’s exploitation and addictions including workaholism).
--With male workers’ “provider” role challenged by competition/automation, there is indeed a (patriarchal) “masculinity crisis”. We should add Graeber’s Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, which debunks the patriarchal image of “working class” as male factory workers (covering up the actual majority, i.e. care work; also see Folbre’s The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values).
--Additional tools:
i) Materialist anthropology lens on the roots of patriarchy: Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding
ii) As hooks cites numerous social science/psychology works, I’m reminded of the lack of rigour in these fields; to level up our tools, see:
-Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks
-I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That
2) War Culture:
--With books analyzing identity, I always pay attention to how class analysis is addressed; hooks mentions:
Poor and working-class male children and grown men often embody the worst strains of patriarchal masculinity, acting out violently because it is the easiest, cheapest way to declare one’s “manhood.” If you cannot prove that you are “much of a man” by becoming president, or becoming rich, or becoming a public leader, or becoming a boss, then violence is your ticket in to the patriarchal manhood contest, and your ability to do violence levels the playing field.--hooks mentions how US elites countered the anti-war (Vietnam) movement/Vietnam Syndrome with more war culture media propaganda. For me, the recent Marvel’s The Punisher TV series is a fascinating case study:
i) The Punisher symbol has become popular amongst US police/military.
ii) The Punisher character was meant to be an anti-hero, a marine (Frank Castle) who lost his family back home and thus brings the foreign battlefield back into civilian life as a vigilante (the Punisher) with extreme tactics (even by the standards of other superhero vigilantes).
iii) The TV series transformed the comic (more fictional) into live action reality, with exceptionally violent scenes (since the protagonist is a soldier rather than a superhero with quirky superpowers).
iv) The TV series’ storyline is the Punisher untangling a conspiracy within the “War on Terror” (what a mess given our current state of social media conspiracies).
v) In the end, justice prevails to expose the “bad apples” instead of questioning the entire premise of the “War on Terror”/US imperialism, the costs of empire even on its own citizens (working-class men sent to die abroad for the profits of chicken-hawk politicians/merchants-of-death capitalists; returning with PTSD; homeless veterans). As always, the lessons from the most decorated US marine in the real world are forgotten: War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier
vi) There is constant tension portraying such a violent anti-hero as the protagonist. Like all such superhero stories, a fantasy world must to be constructed where vigilante violence is valued/noble/the only option. However, the Punisher’s methods/story are so “real” and extreme.
The fictional antagonists must be even worse.
vii) There were many scenes displaying Frank Castle's mental illness; his extreme isolation, his reoccurring nightmares/PTSD (even attending a veterans group therapy), his addiction to violence, etc.
viii) In order for the series to continue, for the Punisher to continue, Frank Castle's addiction must continue. The fantasy world that justifies the Punisher must continue. There cannot be healing.
...If you want to see visceral depictions of these contradictions, there are a bunch of fan-made music videos of the TV series with millions of views. Examples (yes, violent graphics but not age-restricted on youtube): "Ashes", "So Far", Where are My Feelings?, etc.
…In the real world, I’m reminded of how death squad members became the worse addicts in Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here: The United States, Central America, and the Making of a Crisis
…see comments below for rest of the review…
December 22, 2014
Important and original. I appreciate how much space hooks spends on quoting and citing other authors (especially psychotherapists, which made me happy); it's the mark of a great thinker who isn't afraid to give credit where credit is due. This is one of the rare books on masculinity that addresses the topic with sensitivity and also without blaming women or feminism for all of the problems.
My two main criticisms are:
1) hooks seems very gender-essentialist. She continually expresses her arguments as though there are only Men and Women, and Men have penises and Women have vaginas, and Men are Masculine and Women are Feminine. To this end, she calls for a better, "feminist" masculinity for men to aspire to, without ever really justifying what masculinity *is* (other than What Men Do), why we need it, and whether (and if so, why) men should aspire to something different than women. In her view, this feminist masculinity involves having integrity, self-love, relational skills, emotional awareness, etc. Obviously, these are all great traits, but why do we need to call them "masculinity" at all?
2) Although hooks is correct to note that many feminist women fail to acknowledge how deeply patriarchy hurts men (especially non-white, non-middle-/upper-class men), she does not caveat her proposed solution--that women actively work to help men overcome patriarchy--with the fact that many women who do this face immense verbal abuse (and worse) as a result. The reason many of us feminists don't want to engage with men isn't (just) because we see them as all-powerful and incapable of being as hurt as we are, but because when we try to engage with them, they make us regret it. That doesn't mean the solution is to disengage entirely, but hooks' argument would be stronger if she explicitly acknowledged this barrier.
She does at one point write, "Since emotional pain is the feeling that most males have covered up, numbed out, or closed off, the journey back to feeling is frequently through the portal of suffering. Much male rage covers up this place of suffering: this is the well-kept secret. Often when a female gets close to male pain, penetrating the male mask to see the emotional vulnerability beneath, she becomes a target for the rage." However, hooks does not connect this with her admonition that women engage with men to lead them through this process. How do we prevent or cope with becoming the targets of this rage?
My two main criticisms are:
1) hooks seems very gender-essentialist. She continually expresses her arguments as though there are only Men and Women, and Men have penises and Women have vaginas, and Men are Masculine and Women are Feminine. To this end, she calls for a better, "feminist" masculinity for men to aspire to, without ever really justifying what masculinity *is* (other than What Men Do), why we need it, and whether (and if so, why) men should aspire to something different than women. In her view, this feminist masculinity involves having integrity, self-love, relational skills, emotional awareness, etc. Obviously, these are all great traits, but why do we need to call them "masculinity" at all?
2) Although hooks is correct to note that many feminist women fail to acknowledge how deeply patriarchy hurts men (especially non-white, non-middle-/upper-class men), she does not caveat her proposed solution--that women actively work to help men overcome patriarchy--with the fact that many women who do this face immense verbal abuse (and worse) as a result. The reason many of us feminists don't want to engage with men isn't (just) because we see them as all-powerful and incapable of being as hurt as we are, but because when we try to engage with them, they make us regret it. That doesn't mean the solution is to disengage entirely, but hooks' argument would be stronger if she explicitly acknowledged this barrier.
She does at one point write, "Since emotional pain is the feeling that most males have covered up, numbed out, or closed off, the journey back to feeling is frequently through the portal of suffering. Much male rage covers up this place of suffering: this is the well-kept secret. Often when a female gets close to male pain, penetrating the male mask to see the emotional vulnerability beneath, she becomes a target for the rage." However, hooks does not connect this with her admonition that women engage with men to lead them through this process. How do we prevent or cope with becoming the targets of this rage?
August 15, 2017
I am disappointed with this book-- not least because the author is one who many of my friends have admired for years. While I generally agree with her premise, she does not represent it well. Insightful criticism of white male patriarchy is quickly supplanted by ridiculous arguments which undermine her case.
Harry Potter as a prototypical example of white male warmongering?
Facile claims that all males harbor killing rage within them because they are all infected with patriarchical thinking?
Please.
These kind of arguments parody themselves, conforming to the worst caricatures of liberal hysteria. It's a pity, too, because in 2017 we could use a thoughtful critique of patriarchy and how it influences our lives.
Harry Potter as a prototypical example of white male warmongering?
Facile claims that all males harbor killing rage within them because they are all infected with patriarchical thinking?
Please.
These kind of arguments parody themselves, conforming to the worst caricatures of liberal hysteria. It's a pity, too, because in 2017 we could use a thoughtful critique of patriarchy and how it influences our lives.
November 2, 2016
I love and respect bell hooks, but this book was a disappointment.
It takes a huge step away from From Margin to Center, in which hooks writes about male suffering under patriarchy that “Feminist activists should acknowledge that hurt… It does not erase or lesson male responsibility for supporting and perpetuating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than the serious psychological stress and emotional pain caused by male conforming to rigid sexist role patterns” to “sexist roles restrict the identify formation of male and female children, but the process is far more damaging to boys because not only are the roles required of them more rigid and confining, but they are much more likely to receive severe punishment when they deviate from these roles” in The Will to Change. The process is not “far more damaging to boys”. They, of course, suffer a lesser quality of life under patriarchy, but women suffer loss of life.
Much of hooks' argument in this text is not only redundant but also careless and often untrue. There are no citations and the research is dated and imprecise. It successfully (but not exactly thoroughly) argues why men should find the will to change, but not how they might change.
It was also tough as female feminist reader to encounter the numerous inculpations of feminism for failing to provide for male need and to sit with the message that antipatriarchal women must “stand ready to hold” men who express the will to change. Who was there to hold us? I know that this is transactional thinking, but how about addressing feminist women from their hurt and trauma and helping them/us to learn how to forgive and to show love to men, also? We are hurt and angry and we have been systematically trained to not trust men. We cannot simply hold our arms open without sacrificing our safety, comfort, ourselves.
edit: To avoid a totally negative review, I should fairly add that the lucid explanation of the origin of rage exhibited by men I 'probe' out of interest for their wellbeing and hope for our intimacy was helpful and validating.
It takes a huge step away from From Margin to Center, in which hooks writes about male suffering under patriarchy that “Feminist activists should acknowledge that hurt… It does not erase or lesson male responsibility for supporting and perpetuating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than the serious psychological stress and emotional pain caused by male conforming to rigid sexist role patterns” to “sexist roles restrict the identify formation of male and female children, but the process is far more damaging to boys because not only are the roles required of them more rigid and confining, but they are much more likely to receive severe punishment when they deviate from these roles” in The Will to Change. The process is not “far more damaging to boys”. They, of course, suffer a lesser quality of life under patriarchy, but women suffer loss of life.
Much of hooks' argument in this text is not only redundant but also careless and often untrue. There are no citations and the research is dated and imprecise. It successfully (but not exactly thoroughly) argues why men should find the will to change, but not how they might change.
It was also tough as female feminist reader to encounter the numerous inculpations of feminism for failing to provide for male need and to sit with the message that antipatriarchal women must “stand ready to hold” men who express the will to change. Who was there to hold us? I know that this is transactional thinking, but how about addressing feminist women from their hurt and trauma and helping them/us to learn how to forgive and to show love to men, also? We are hurt and angry and we have been systematically trained to not trust men. We cannot simply hold our arms open without sacrificing our safety, comfort, ourselves.
edit: To avoid a totally negative review, I should fairly add that the lucid explanation of the origin of rage exhibited by men I 'probe' out of interest for their wellbeing and hope for our intimacy was helpful and validating.
July 16, 2024
bell hooks ist eine bekannte afro-amerikanische Feministin und Theoretikerin. Ihre Werke werden vielfach rezipiert und empfohlen. Nachdem mich vor einiger Zeit bereits ihr Einstiegswerk Feminismus für alle enttäuschte, hatte ich eigentlich nicht vor, zu einem weiteren Buch von ihr zu greifen. Da Männer, Männlichkeit und Liebe dann aber für kurze Zeit umsonst über die LpB zu bekommen war, entschied ich mich dafür, hooks noch eine Chance zu geben.
Nach der Lektüre dieses Buches kann ich nun definitiv sagen, dass bell hooks' Bücher einfach nichts für mich sind. Die Bücher werden oft als akademische/wissenschaftliche Texte angepriesen und hooks selbst war als Hochschullehrerin tätig. Dabei ist hooks' Vorgehensweise sehr unwissenschaftlich. In ihren Büchern verkauft sie ihre eigene Meinung als Fakt, ihre eigenen Ideen/Ansätze als belegt. Es fehlen jegliche Quellen und Belege. hooks argumentiert sehr subjektiv, oft sind mir ihre Ansätze auch zu spirituell und abstrakt. Teilweise finden sich sogar Falschaussagen und krasse Verallgemeinerungen in ihren Thesen.
Grundsätzlich ist das Thema und die Idee hinter Männer, Männlichkeit und Liebe eine gute. hooks möchte aufzeigen, dass das Patriarchat nicht nur schlecht für Frauen, sondern eben auch für Männer ist. Diese Erkenntnis ist für die meisten von uns keine neue, aber da dieses Buch Anfang der 2000er erschien, kann man hooks schon zugestehen, dass solche Thesen damals noch keinen breiten gesellschaftlichen Konsens hatten.
In dem Vorwort zum Buch gibt hooks zu, dass sie Angst vor Männern hat. Und ich denke, so geht es den meisten. Auch ich habe Angst vor Männer. (Nein, nicht vor allen Männern, und nein, nicht in jedem Kontext, aber dennoch würde ich diese Aussage in all ihrer Allgemeinheit unterschreiben.) hooks vertritt die These, dass Frauen durch das Patriarchat politische und wirtschaftliche Gleichberechtigung verweigert wird, während Männer der Liebe und anderer Gefühle beraubt werden. Das Patriarchat hindere Männer daran, zu lieben und mit ihrer Gefühlswelt in Einklang zu kommen. Jungen werde beigebracht, ihre Gefühle zu unterdrücken, lediglich Wut und Gewalt seien akzeptabel, wenn nicht gar gefordert. Das Patriarchat lehre Männer, sich nach Gewalt und Sex zu sehnen, aber nicht nach Liebe. hooks meint, dass Männer sich ihrer Gefühle bewusst werden müssen, um heilen zu können – und Frauen müssen dies begrüßen und unterstützen.
Wie gesagt, für die meisten von uns stecken in diesen Thesen keine neuen Erkenntnisse. Sie sind das kleine Einmaleins des Feminismus. Trotzdem kann ich anerkennen, dass Menschen, die sich vielleicht weniger mit Sexismus und Patriarchat auseinandergesetzt haben, einiges aus diesem Buch mitnehmen können.
Auch ich fand einige Punkte spannend. Die Stellen, an denen hooks über ihr Aufwachsen und ihre Familie schreibt, waren für mich die stärksten: "In unserer Familie war Papa nicht ständig wütend, aber die intensiven emotionalen und körperlichen Misshandlungen, die er bei den seltenen Gelegenheiten, in denen er gewalttätig wurde, ausübte, hielten alle in Schach, wir lebten am Rande des Abgrunds und in Angst." Viele Menschen kennen diese Dynamik zwischen Vater (meistens ruhig, aber trotzdem die Respektsperson) und Mutter (regt sich ständig auf, Kinder tanzen ihr auf der Nase herum).
Zudem fand ich hooks' These zu Frauen, die arbeiten, sehr treffend: "Die meisten Frauen arbeiten, weil sie das Haus verlassen wollen und weil ihre Familien das Einkommen zum Überleben brauchen, nicht weil sie Feministinnen sind, die glauben, dass Arbeit ein Zeichen der Befreiung ist." Es ist einfach interessant, wie sich manche Diskurse verschieben. Es ist total wichtig, dass Frauen auf die Straße gegangen sind und sich für ihr Recht auf Arbeit und Lohn eingesetzt haben, trotzdem ist die Ausgangslage heute insofern eine andere, als dass die kapitalistischen Strukturen in denen wir leben, uns diese Freiheit genommen haben. Wir müssen arbeiten, wenn wir leben wollen. Es gibt keine Wahl mehr (zumindest für den Großteil der Frauen auf dieser Welt).
Eine weiterer take von hooks, der mich überzeugte: "Einer der Gründe, warum die Kirche im Leben Schwarzer Männer so wichtig ist, besteht darin, dass sie einer der Orte ist, an dem sie ihre Gefühle ausdrücken und trauern können. […] In der Kirche meiner Kindheit habe ich zum ersten Mal Männer weinen sehen." Generell ist es erfrischend, dass hooks, als Afro-Amerikanerin und Schwarze Frau, oft auch die Perspektiven von Schwarzen Männern in Abgrenzung zu weißen Männer beleuchtet. Viele weiße Feministinnen machen diese Unterschiede nicht, bspw. Caroline Criado Pérez in Unsichtbare Frauen: Wie eine von Männern gemachte Welt die Hälfte der Bevölkerung ignoriert, was zu falschen Verallgemeinerungen und Rückschlüssen führt.
In meiner Rezension möchte ich dennoch etwas näher auf meine Kritikpunkte an diesem Buch eingehen:
1. Fehlende Quellen und Falschaussagen
Die fehlenden Quellen und Falschaussagen sind wohl das, was mich am meisten an diesem Buch gestört hat. Oft hat man das Gefühl, dass hooks einfach irgendwas raushaut, was ihr gerade gut in den Kram passt und ihr Narrativ fördert. Damit macht sie sich natürlich auch für Kritiker*innen angreifbar, die ihr genau dies vorwerfen können.
Es fängt bei einfachen/unverfänglichen Behauptungen an, wie bspw. "Männliche Babys schreien länger und lauter als weibliche". Da hooks keine Studie nennt, auf die sich diese Aussage stützt, können wir als Leser*innen nicht wissen, ob sie stimmt oder nicht.
Es gibt aber auch deutliche steilere und potentiell gefährlichere Thesen, die hooks unbelegt einfach so raushaut: "Bilder von männlicher Gewalt und Dominanz in den Massenmedien führen zu gewalttätigen Jungen, die wahllos morden." Das wage ich zu bezweifeln, da es vor allem im Zusammenhang mit Ego-Shootern und Amokläufen viele Studien gibt, die belegen, dass es keinen Zusammenhang zwischen medialen Darstellungen von Gewalt und dem realen Akt des Tötens gibt. Es ist einfach schade, dass hooks solche Aussagen macht und dann nicht weiter auf sie eingeht.
Ein weiteres Beispiel: "Homophobie ist der Grund für die Angst, dass Jungen durch das Zulassen von Gefühlen homosexuell werden könnten; diese Angst ist in Haushalten mit alleinerziehenden Frauen oft am stärksten ausgeprägt." SAYS WHO??? I guess we'll never know.
Noch ein Beispiel: "In vielen Fällen, in denen der Lohn einer Frau höher ist als der ihres männlichen Partners, rastet er aus, um sein Dominanzgefühl wiederherzustellen. Er kann ihren Gehaltsscheck einfach konfiszieren und ihn nach Belieben verwenden und sie so abhängig machen." Warum kann er ihren Gehaltsscheck einfach konfiszieren?? Ich bin maximal verwirrt.
Ein letztes Beispiel: "Sexistische Rollen Schränken die Identitätsbildung von männlichen und weiblichen Kindern ein, aber der Prozess ist für Jungen weitaus verheerender, weil die von ihnen geforderten Rollen nicht nur starrer und einschränkender sind, sondern sie auch viel eher schwer bestraft werden, wenn sie von diesen Rollenmustern abweichen." Das ist einfach falsch und wieder potentiell gefährlich. Sexistische Rollen sind für Jungen und Mädchen gleich toxisch. Ich wüsste nicht, warum das männliche Rollenbild "einschränkender" sein sollte als das weibliche? Auch hier haut hooks einfach diese Aussage raus und untermauert sie nicht weiter.
2. Nicht nachvollziehbare Interpretationen
Es gibt viele Aussagen in diesem Buch, die mich wirklich haben den Kopf schütteln lassen. Und ich bin nicht froh darüber, dass ich jetzt ausgerechnet die Harry Potter-Reihe verteidigen muss, aber in dem Kapitel über Medien, die Jungen in ihrer Kindheit rezipieren, haut hooks einfach den komischsten Take zu Harry Potter überhaupt raus.
hooks mahnt, dass der Charakter Harry Potter ein schlechtes Vorbild für Jungen sei, da Harry ein "Mini-Patriarch" und "weißes Genie" sei, "das über die ebenso schlauen Kinder herrscht". Zudem "verherrlichen die Bücher den Krieg, der als Töten im Namen des 'Guten'" dargestellt würde. Ehhh? Bestie babes, da bin ich raus. Es gibt vieles, was man an den Harry Potter-Büchern kritisieren kann. Sie sind an vielen Stellen aus der Zeit gefallen und verstärken teilweise gefährliche Stereotype und Narrative ... aber dass die Bücher kriegsverherrlichend seien, kann ich absolut nicht nachvollziehen?? Harry als "Mini-Patriarchen", der über die anderen Kinder "herrscht", sehe ich auch überhaupt nicht. Ich habe das Gefühl, dass hooks die Bücher nicht mal gelesen hat.
Ein weitere komische Aussage von hooks: "Auch wenn die Mehrheit der amerikanischen Jungen keine Gewaltverbrechen begehen wird, die zu Mord führen, ist die Wahrheit, die niemand benennen will, dass alle Jungen zu Mördern erzogen werden, auch wenn sie lernen, den Mörder in sich zu verbergen und sich als wohlwollende junge Patriarchen aufzuführen." Auch hier bin ich komplett raus. Meiner Erfahrung nach werden nicht ALLE Jungen "zu Mördern erzogen" (was soll das überhaupt heißen?) und nicht alle Männer "lernen, den Mörder in sich zu verbergen". Diese Thesen sind mir einfach zu steil und hooks gibt sich nicht mal die Mühe, diese zu unterfüttern oder zu belegen. Daher ist mir auch gar nicht so richtig klar, was sie damit meint.
Über Männer, die sich gegen Gewalt und für die Liebe entscheiden, schreibt hooks: "Diese Männer sind die wahren Helden, die Männer, deren Leben wir kennen, ehren und in Erinnerung behalten müssen." Auch das ist ein weirder take. Warum sind Männer, die das bare minimum erfüllen, HELDEN? Ist das Helden-Narrativ im allgemeinen nicht total patriarchal und überholt? Wie gesagt, kann man so sehen, ich sehe es aber anders.
hooks war ein sehr spiritueller Mensch, daher sind viele ihrer "Lösungsansätze" sehr abstrakt und spirituell. Ich konnte damit leider wenig anfangen und fand ihre Ideen auch nicht gut praktisch umsetzbar, bspw. "Männer müssen hören, dass ihre Seelen wichtig sind und dass die Pflege ihrer Seelen die wichtigste Aufgabe ihres Daseins ist." Okay? Dann fang' ich mal an, dass den Männern in meiner Umgebung zu erzählen ...
3. Auslassen von Transidentitäten
Ich verstehe, dass ein Buch über Männer, das 2003 entstand, keinen Fokus auf Transmänner legt. So schrecklich die Unsichtbarmachung von Transmenschen auch ist, ist sie nunmal ein Fakt, der sich durch unsere Vergangenheit (und Gegenwart) zieht. Dennoch ist das komplette Auslassen bzw. Nicht-Nennen/Anerkennen von Transmenschen in einem Buch, das sich explizit mit Gender und Geschlechterrollen auseinandersetzt, eine Lücke, die kritisiert werden muss. In dem Buch spricht hooks oft homosexuelle Männer an, Transmänner kommen jedoch überhaupt nicht vor.
hooks' Definition eines Mannes, die sie in diesem Buch angibt, ist zudem transfeindlich: "Wir müssen Männlichkeit als eine Zustand des Seins und nicht als Leistung definieren. Männliches Sein, Männlichkeit, Maskulinität müssen für die essentielle Grundgüte des Selbst stehen, für den männlichen Körper, der einen Penis hat."
***
Abschließend bleibt für mich festzuhalten, dass ich froh bin, einen kleinen Teil von hooks' Werk für mich erschlossen zu haben, ich nun aber genug habe. Sie ist einfach nicht die Theoretikerin für mich.
Nach der Lektüre dieses Buches kann ich nun definitiv sagen, dass bell hooks' Bücher einfach nichts für mich sind. Die Bücher werden oft als akademische/wissenschaftliche Texte angepriesen und hooks selbst war als Hochschullehrerin tätig. Dabei ist hooks' Vorgehensweise sehr unwissenschaftlich. In ihren Büchern verkauft sie ihre eigene Meinung als Fakt, ihre eigenen Ideen/Ansätze als belegt. Es fehlen jegliche Quellen und Belege. hooks argumentiert sehr subjektiv, oft sind mir ihre Ansätze auch zu spirituell und abstrakt. Teilweise finden sich sogar Falschaussagen und krasse Verallgemeinerungen in ihren Thesen.
Grundsätzlich ist das Thema und die Idee hinter Männer, Männlichkeit und Liebe eine gute. hooks möchte aufzeigen, dass das Patriarchat nicht nur schlecht für Frauen, sondern eben auch für Männer ist. Diese Erkenntnis ist für die meisten von uns keine neue, aber da dieses Buch Anfang der 2000er erschien, kann man hooks schon zugestehen, dass solche Thesen damals noch keinen breiten gesellschaftlichen Konsens hatten.
In dem Vorwort zum Buch gibt hooks zu, dass sie Angst vor Männern hat. Und ich denke, so geht es den meisten. Auch ich habe Angst vor Männer. (Nein, nicht vor allen Männern, und nein, nicht in jedem Kontext, aber dennoch würde ich diese Aussage in all ihrer Allgemeinheit unterschreiben.) hooks vertritt die These, dass Frauen durch das Patriarchat politische und wirtschaftliche Gleichberechtigung verweigert wird, während Männer der Liebe und anderer Gefühle beraubt werden. Das Patriarchat hindere Männer daran, zu lieben und mit ihrer Gefühlswelt in Einklang zu kommen. Jungen werde beigebracht, ihre Gefühle zu unterdrücken, lediglich Wut und Gewalt seien akzeptabel, wenn nicht gar gefordert. Das Patriarchat lehre Männer, sich nach Gewalt und Sex zu sehnen, aber nicht nach Liebe. hooks meint, dass Männer sich ihrer Gefühle bewusst werden müssen, um heilen zu können – und Frauen müssen dies begrüßen und unterstützen.
Solange Männer über Frauen herrschen, kann es keine Liebe zwischen uns geben. Dass Liebe und Herrschaft nebeneinander existieren können, ist eine der mächtigsten Lügen, die uns das Patriarchat erzählt.Männern wird beigebracht, dominant, gewalttätig und gefühllos zu sein. Diese gesellschaftliche Erwartung führt dazu, dass sie und die Menschen um sie herum leiden. hooks zeigt auf, dass es auch einen anderen Weg gibt. Männer können lernen, ihre Gefühle anzuerkennen und mitzuteilen, und so lernen, andere und sich selbst zu lieben.
Wie gesagt, für die meisten von uns stecken in diesen Thesen keine neuen Erkenntnisse. Sie sind das kleine Einmaleins des Feminismus. Trotzdem kann ich anerkennen, dass Menschen, die sich vielleicht weniger mit Sexismus und Patriarchat auseinandergesetzt haben, einiges aus diesem Buch mitnehmen können.
Auch ich fand einige Punkte spannend. Die Stellen, an denen hooks über ihr Aufwachsen und ihre Familie schreibt, waren für mich die stärksten: "In unserer Familie war Papa nicht ständig wütend, aber die intensiven emotionalen und körperlichen Misshandlungen, die er bei den seltenen Gelegenheiten, in denen er gewalttätig wurde, ausübte, hielten alle in Schach, wir lebten am Rande des Abgrunds und in Angst." Viele Menschen kennen diese Dynamik zwischen Vater (meistens ruhig, aber trotzdem die Respektsperson) und Mutter (regt sich ständig auf, Kinder tanzen ihr auf der Nase herum).
Zudem fand ich hooks' These zu Frauen, die arbeiten, sehr treffend: "Die meisten Frauen arbeiten, weil sie das Haus verlassen wollen und weil ihre Familien das Einkommen zum Überleben brauchen, nicht weil sie Feministinnen sind, die glauben, dass Arbeit ein Zeichen der Befreiung ist." Es ist einfach interessant, wie sich manche Diskurse verschieben. Es ist total wichtig, dass Frauen auf die Straße gegangen sind und sich für ihr Recht auf Arbeit und Lohn eingesetzt haben, trotzdem ist die Ausgangslage heute insofern eine andere, als dass die kapitalistischen Strukturen in denen wir leben, uns diese Freiheit genommen haben. Wir müssen arbeiten, wenn wir leben wollen. Es gibt keine Wahl mehr (zumindest für den Großteil der Frauen auf dieser Welt).
Eine weiterer take von hooks, der mich überzeugte: "Einer der Gründe, warum die Kirche im Leben Schwarzer Männer so wichtig ist, besteht darin, dass sie einer der Orte ist, an dem sie ihre Gefühle ausdrücken und trauern können. […] In der Kirche meiner Kindheit habe ich zum ersten Mal Männer weinen sehen." Generell ist es erfrischend, dass hooks, als Afro-Amerikanerin und Schwarze Frau, oft auch die Perspektiven von Schwarzen Männern in Abgrenzung zu weißen Männer beleuchtet. Viele weiße Feministinnen machen diese Unterschiede nicht, bspw. Caroline Criado Pérez in Unsichtbare Frauen: Wie eine von Männern gemachte Welt die Hälfte der Bevölkerung ignoriert, was zu falschen Verallgemeinerungen und Rückschlüssen führt.
In meiner Rezension möchte ich dennoch etwas näher auf meine Kritikpunkte an diesem Buch eingehen:
1. Fehlende Quellen und Falschaussagen
Die fehlenden Quellen und Falschaussagen sind wohl das, was mich am meisten an diesem Buch gestört hat. Oft hat man das Gefühl, dass hooks einfach irgendwas raushaut, was ihr gerade gut in den Kram passt und ihr Narrativ fördert. Damit macht sie sich natürlich auch für Kritiker*innen angreifbar, die ihr genau dies vorwerfen können.
Es fängt bei einfachen/unverfänglichen Behauptungen an, wie bspw. "Männliche Babys schreien länger und lauter als weibliche". Da hooks keine Studie nennt, auf die sich diese Aussage stützt, können wir als Leser*innen nicht wissen, ob sie stimmt oder nicht.
Es gibt aber auch deutliche steilere und potentiell gefährlichere Thesen, die hooks unbelegt einfach so raushaut: "Bilder von männlicher Gewalt und Dominanz in den Massenmedien führen zu gewalttätigen Jungen, die wahllos morden." Das wage ich zu bezweifeln, da es vor allem im Zusammenhang mit Ego-Shootern und Amokläufen viele Studien gibt, die belegen, dass es keinen Zusammenhang zwischen medialen Darstellungen von Gewalt und dem realen Akt des Tötens gibt. Es ist einfach schade, dass hooks solche Aussagen macht und dann nicht weiter auf sie eingeht.
Ein weiteres Beispiel: "Homophobie ist der Grund für die Angst, dass Jungen durch das Zulassen von Gefühlen homosexuell werden könnten; diese Angst ist in Haushalten mit alleinerziehenden Frauen oft am stärksten ausgeprägt." SAYS WHO??? I guess we'll never know.
Noch ein Beispiel: "In vielen Fällen, in denen der Lohn einer Frau höher ist als der ihres männlichen Partners, rastet er aus, um sein Dominanzgefühl wiederherzustellen. Er kann ihren Gehaltsscheck einfach konfiszieren und ihn nach Belieben verwenden und sie so abhängig machen." Warum kann er ihren Gehaltsscheck einfach konfiszieren?? Ich bin maximal verwirrt.
Ein letztes Beispiel: "Sexistische Rollen Schränken die Identitätsbildung von männlichen und weiblichen Kindern ein, aber der Prozess ist für Jungen weitaus verheerender, weil die von ihnen geforderten Rollen nicht nur starrer und einschränkender sind, sondern sie auch viel eher schwer bestraft werden, wenn sie von diesen Rollenmustern abweichen." Das ist einfach falsch und wieder potentiell gefährlich. Sexistische Rollen sind für Jungen und Mädchen gleich toxisch. Ich wüsste nicht, warum das männliche Rollenbild "einschränkender" sein sollte als das weibliche? Auch hier haut hooks einfach diese Aussage raus und untermauert sie nicht weiter.
2. Nicht nachvollziehbare Interpretationen
Es gibt viele Aussagen in diesem Buch, die mich wirklich haben den Kopf schütteln lassen. Und ich bin nicht froh darüber, dass ich jetzt ausgerechnet die Harry Potter-Reihe verteidigen muss, aber in dem Kapitel über Medien, die Jungen in ihrer Kindheit rezipieren, haut hooks einfach den komischsten Take zu Harry Potter überhaupt raus.
hooks mahnt, dass der Charakter Harry Potter ein schlechtes Vorbild für Jungen sei, da Harry ein "Mini-Patriarch" und "weißes Genie" sei, "das über die ebenso schlauen Kinder herrscht". Zudem "verherrlichen die Bücher den Krieg, der als Töten im Namen des 'Guten'" dargestellt würde. Ehhh? Bestie babes, da bin ich raus. Es gibt vieles, was man an den Harry Potter-Büchern kritisieren kann. Sie sind an vielen Stellen aus der Zeit gefallen und verstärken teilweise gefährliche Stereotype und Narrative ... aber dass die Bücher kriegsverherrlichend seien, kann ich absolut nicht nachvollziehen?? Harry als "Mini-Patriarchen", der über die anderen Kinder "herrscht", sehe ich auch überhaupt nicht. Ich habe das Gefühl, dass hooks die Bücher nicht mal gelesen hat.
Ein weitere komische Aussage von hooks: "Auch wenn die Mehrheit der amerikanischen Jungen keine Gewaltverbrechen begehen wird, die zu Mord führen, ist die Wahrheit, die niemand benennen will, dass alle Jungen zu Mördern erzogen werden, auch wenn sie lernen, den Mörder in sich zu verbergen und sich als wohlwollende junge Patriarchen aufzuführen." Auch hier bin ich komplett raus. Meiner Erfahrung nach werden nicht ALLE Jungen "zu Mördern erzogen" (was soll das überhaupt heißen?) und nicht alle Männer "lernen, den Mörder in sich zu verbergen". Diese Thesen sind mir einfach zu steil und hooks gibt sich nicht mal die Mühe, diese zu unterfüttern oder zu belegen. Daher ist mir auch gar nicht so richtig klar, was sie damit meint.
Über Männer, die sich gegen Gewalt und für die Liebe entscheiden, schreibt hooks: "Diese Männer sind die wahren Helden, die Männer, deren Leben wir kennen, ehren und in Erinnerung behalten müssen." Auch das ist ein weirder take. Warum sind Männer, die das bare minimum erfüllen, HELDEN? Ist das Helden-Narrativ im allgemeinen nicht total patriarchal und überholt? Wie gesagt, kann man so sehen, ich sehe es aber anders.
hooks war ein sehr spiritueller Mensch, daher sind viele ihrer "Lösungsansätze" sehr abstrakt und spirituell. Ich konnte damit leider wenig anfangen und fand ihre Ideen auch nicht gut praktisch umsetzbar, bspw. "Männer müssen hören, dass ihre Seelen wichtig sind und dass die Pflege ihrer Seelen die wichtigste Aufgabe ihres Daseins ist." Okay? Dann fang' ich mal an, dass den Männern in meiner Umgebung zu erzählen ...
3. Auslassen von Transidentitäten
Ich verstehe, dass ein Buch über Männer, das 2003 entstand, keinen Fokus auf Transmänner legt. So schrecklich die Unsichtbarmachung von Transmenschen auch ist, ist sie nunmal ein Fakt, der sich durch unsere Vergangenheit (und Gegenwart) zieht. Dennoch ist das komplette Auslassen bzw. Nicht-Nennen/Anerkennen von Transmenschen in einem Buch, das sich explizit mit Gender und Geschlechterrollen auseinandersetzt, eine Lücke, die kritisiert werden muss. In dem Buch spricht hooks oft homosexuelle Männer an, Transmänner kommen jedoch überhaupt nicht vor.
hooks' Definition eines Mannes, die sie in diesem Buch angibt, ist zudem transfeindlich: "Wir müssen Männlichkeit als eine Zustand des Seins und nicht als Leistung definieren. Männliches Sein, Männlichkeit, Maskulinität müssen für die essentielle Grundgüte des Selbst stehen, für den männlichen Körper, der einen Penis hat."
***
Abschließend bleibt für mich festzuhalten, dass ich froh bin, einen kleinen Teil von hooks' Werk für mich erschlossen zu haben, ich nun aber genug habe. Sie ist einfach nicht die Theoretikerin für mich.
February 28, 2022
I first heard of this book on an episode of the podcast Pass The Mic in 2020. One of the hosts Tyler Burns highly and passionately recommended that Black men read this book and a group of us did in the Black Men Read book club. bell hooks teaches us in this book that patriarchy is a problem. For men its starts when we are boys and are told to not express our emotions, "be a man", be tough, etc. What that teaches men is to bottle up our emotions, but hooks says that when boys/men do this the end result is always "acting out" and violence against each other and especially women and children, which continues to perpetuate the cycle into future generations.
There are alot of men walking around today who are not free and they don't even know it. The patriarchal dominator culture that hooks writes about affects men in every aspect of life from childhood, to work, to sexual relations, to platonic relations, to pop culture, and more. hooks teaches us that to become better men we have to learn how to feel again, we have to learn how to self-critique ourselves, we have to become more emotionally aware. Then and only then can we become whole, more loving, more present to our loved ones, more free. But none of this can happen without men beginning the process of changing how they relate to themselves and others.
This book is powerful, you will definitely see how patriarchy has impacted your life from an early age to now. Memories of experiences with family and friends who promoted patriarchal culture came flowing back to me as I read this book but so did examples of feminist masculinity. It is the feminist masculinity memories that I will harken back to from time to time and build upon to become a better man, a whole man, a loving man.
There are alot of men walking around today who are not free and they don't even know it. The patriarchal dominator culture that hooks writes about affects men in every aspect of life from childhood, to work, to sexual relations, to platonic relations, to pop culture, and more. hooks teaches us that to become better men we have to learn how to feel again, we have to learn how to self-critique ourselves, we have to become more emotionally aware. Then and only then can we become whole, more loving, more present to our loved ones, more free. But none of this can happen without men beginning the process of changing how they relate to themselves and others.
This book is powerful, you will definitely see how patriarchy has impacted your life from an early age to now. Memories of experiences with family and friends who promoted patriarchal culture came flowing back to me as I read this book but so did examples of feminist masculinity. It is the feminist masculinity memories that I will harken back to from time to time and build upon to become a better man, a whole man, a loving man.
April 7, 2023
This book has answered almost every question I've ever had about men and why they are the way they are. It has helped restore my faith in men as a sex. Instead of just pointing out the injustices of patriarchy, Hooks explains, step by step, exactly how men are socialized to be violent, and given misguided notions about what it means to be 'male.' For the first time, I was introduced to the idea that men suffer from patriarchy even as they are privileged by it. Because of Hooks, I've been inspired to help men redefine masculinity. Because of her, I now try to understand men. Because of bell hooks, I'm ok with loving men again. This is a book I will most definitely come back to.
July 24, 2019
Many people write in the reviews: "all men should read this". Well, I am a man and I read it.
None of the advice given in the book is actionable. Even the author complains about the lack of advice for men in literature but provides none herself.
All you get from this book is a introduction into the authors feminist ideology and world view. She is never self critical and proofs her views only by anecdotal evidence. She never cites any study or scientific publication but only other authors opinions or experiences.
When it comes to her ideas and solutions she stays extremely vague: "Love your spouse", "Dont use violence", "Love your child", "Let your child develope freely", "Dont beat your wife", "Have compession" ... you get the point. Of course everyone would agree with that. But also everyone already knew that.
Also, her examples and generalizations did not really match any of my experiences and seem to not hold when looking at the men and women in my environment. This may be because her observations are wrong, or because my environment is different. Because I am not from the US, I give her the benefit of the doubt.
She condemns the partriarchical masculinity. This is something I can agree with when using her definition of partriarchical masculinity. As an alternative she proposes an "alternative masculinity". But unfortunately she never comes around defining it or describing it. It actually seems like her promoted "alternative masculinity" is just the way women behave.
Her world view is extremly simplistic (the root of all bad in the world is patriarchy). Her arguments are very lazy (anecdotes and "other people also think so"). And her solutions are common sense and way too vague.
I really wanted to change to the better using this book. Of course that is what I want from every book. Well, at least I know a little bit more about modern feminism now.
None of the advice given in the book is actionable. Even the author complains about the lack of advice for men in literature but provides none herself.
All you get from this book is a introduction into the authors feminist ideology and world view. She is never self critical and proofs her views only by anecdotal evidence. She never cites any study or scientific publication but only other authors opinions or experiences.
When it comes to her ideas and solutions she stays extremely vague: "Love your spouse", "Dont use violence", "Love your child", "Let your child develope freely", "Dont beat your wife", "Have compession" ... you get the point. Of course everyone would agree with that. But also everyone already knew that.
Also, her examples and generalizations did not really match any of my experiences and seem to not hold when looking at the men and women in my environment. This may be because her observations are wrong, or because my environment is different. Because I am not from the US, I give her the benefit of the doubt.
She condemns the partriarchical masculinity. This is something I can agree with when using her definition of partriarchical masculinity. As an alternative she proposes an "alternative masculinity". But unfortunately she never comes around defining it or describing it. It actually seems like her promoted "alternative masculinity" is just the way women behave.
Her world view is extremly simplistic (the root of all bad in the world is patriarchy). Her arguments are very lazy (anecdotes and "other people also think so"). And her solutions are common sense and way too vague.
I really wanted to change to the better using this book. Of course that is what I want from every book. Well, at least I know a little bit more about modern feminism now.
April 15, 2022
A guy cited this book as his reason for ending things, so thought I should support him and read it. Turns out he was just hooking up with his ex, so I guess the only thing “willing to change” is my faith in men.
May 28, 2024
“For boys this issue of control begins with the mother’s response to his penis; usually she does not like it and she does not know what to do with it. Her discomfort with his penis communicates that there is something inherently wrong with it.”
this was such an out of nowhere statement to make and it was said with such casualness like i as a reader am supposed to nod along because it is as factually correct and carries the same amount of truth as saying "water is wet" does but i have been sitting with this for twelve hours now and i am still bewildered. can i interview some mothers, i literally only have this one research question, someone give me funding.
while i'm sure that men getting harmed by patriarchy was a revolutionary observation and statement to make in 2003, this whole book did kinda fall flat for me in the year of our lord 2024. should have read it twenty years ago, jesus fucking christ, what was six year old me even doing.
it did have its moments but ultimately it was too repetitive and generalized to carry any depth i would have found meaningful.
we should consider for a moment that i might not be the target audience for this but then again what is a target audience really. also i don't want to be like "you have to include trans and nonbinary people in your books about feminism/gender" because i don't really care that much tbh. you can write a book solely focused on cis people, in this case cis men, it's whatever but - while reading there were just a lot of instances where i was like "there is a lot of perspective missing"
there is a part where the author argues that boys get a lot more punished for falling out of line when it comes to fulfilling their gender roles and have far less room to express themselves while girls can more or less do what they want and society is more forgiving, and in my head i was like "well, that's not true? society is very punishing when you don't perform and deny certain aspects of girlhood.... oh... might be just be trans experience.. my bad" and as a trans person it's like .. well, you say these things like they are universal truth but... they simply are not. i don't even think they are for cis people.
so to end this review that was going nowhere in the first place with a silly little joke: i did spend some time wondering where *i* (main character of the world) am in all this until there came a part where the author was like "men don't talk about their emotions with their colleagues, they make jokes and jests, but they don't reveal any truths about themselves" (or something along those lines) and i have realized, that i am a man cause wtf who talks to their colleagues about their feelings??? i would literally rather die??
TL;DR: this has fulfilled my yearly quota for nonfiction books (which is zero so we are already wayyy out of line). only mindnumbingly stupid books from now on! no learning! i want a book where i will know LESS after reading it, delete those braincells!
this was such an out of nowhere statement to make and it was said with such casualness like i as a reader am supposed to nod along because it is as factually correct and carries the same amount of truth as saying "water is wet" does but i have been sitting with this for twelve hours now and i am still bewildered. can i interview some mothers, i literally only have this one research question, someone give me funding.
while i'm sure that men getting harmed by patriarchy was a revolutionary observation and statement to make in 2003, this whole book did kinda fall flat for me in the year of our lord 2024. should have read it twenty years ago, jesus fucking christ, what was six year old me even doing.
it did have its moments but ultimately it was too repetitive and generalized to carry any depth i would have found meaningful.
we should consider for a moment that i might not be the target audience for this but then again what is a target audience really. also i don't want to be like "you have to include trans and nonbinary people in your books about feminism/gender" because i don't really care that much tbh. you can write a book solely focused on cis people, in this case cis men, it's whatever but - while reading there were just a lot of instances where i was like "there is a lot of perspective missing"
there is a part where the author argues that boys get a lot more punished for falling out of line when it comes to fulfilling their gender roles and have far less room to express themselves while girls can more or less do what they want and society is more forgiving, and in my head i was like "well, that's not true? society is very punishing when you don't perform and deny certain aspects of girlhood.... oh... might be just be trans experience.. my bad" and as a trans person it's like .. well, you say these things like they are universal truth but... they simply are not. i don't even think they are for cis people.
so to end this review that was going nowhere in the first place with a silly little joke: i did spend some time wondering where *i* (main character of the world) am in all this until there came a part where the author was like "men don't talk about their emotions with their colleagues, they make jokes and jests, but they don't reveal any truths about themselves" (or something along those lines) and i have realized, that i am a man cause wtf who talks to their colleagues about their feelings??? i would literally rather die??
TL;DR: this has fulfilled my yearly quota for nonfiction books (which is zero so we are already wayyy out of line). only mindnumbingly stupid books from now on! no learning! i want a book where i will know LESS after reading it, delete those braincells!
May 31, 2016
This is a profound book that I will now list as one of the most life-changing I have ever read.
Its singular message is that patriarchy harms men almost as much as it harms women (though in different ways). Feminism is not women working against men, but women and men who value love working against men and women who value domination.
I haven't loved the previous hooks books I've read, even though I agreed with them, because I didn't find her writing style clear or elegant enough. But this one resonated deeply.
I now have intense grief that this book wasn't given to me when I was younger, that its lessons are not taught in schools, that copies are not given to boys and teenagers. It has shown me new insight that more parts of my personality are not innate but are a result of our culture, generating some serious existential wondering.
The book isn't perfect. There are few New Agey passages here and there, which I can be overly sensitive to. (But I think we don't have a language for some of these concepts that won't seem cheesy or New Age.) Also, some of her pop culture critiques seemed inaccurate and out of place.
But the book raises points that I just have never seen anywhere else, and I've read a lot of feminist writing. How can one of the biggest problems in human history be so ignored, so swept under the rug?
I plan to give this book to as many people as I can.
Its singular message is that patriarchy harms men almost as much as it harms women (though in different ways). Feminism is not women working against men, but women and men who value love working against men and women who value domination.
I haven't loved the previous hooks books I've read, even though I agreed with them, because I didn't find her writing style clear or elegant enough. But this one resonated deeply.
I now have intense grief that this book wasn't given to me when I was younger, that its lessons are not taught in schools, that copies are not given to boys and teenagers. It has shown me new insight that more parts of my personality are not innate but are a result of our culture, generating some serious existential wondering.
The book isn't perfect. There are few New Agey passages here and there, which I can be overly sensitive to. (But I think we don't have a language for some of these concepts that won't seem cheesy or New Age.) Also, some of her pop culture critiques seemed inaccurate and out of place.
But the book raises points that I just have never seen anywhere else, and I've read a lot of feminist writing. How can one of the biggest problems in human history be so ignored, so swept under the rug?
I plan to give this book to as many people as I can.
February 27, 2022
Wow, the amount of times I started, stopped and restarted this book I didn’t think I’d ever finish it.
The first couple of chapters from 1-5 triggered me repeatedly. It’s not complicated to say why, but it is! There’s something about looking into and attempting to understand the fluctuating emotional state of men and patriarchy that is uncomfortable and yet simultaneously necessary.
I always turn to bell hooks when I’m looking for internal peace around certain topics and she always offers up the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. Sometimes we’re able to deal and sometimes we’re not, hence the stopping and starting.
I appreciate the various lens that bell hooks applies to this topic. She delves deep into both nature and nurturing, as well as societal responsibility for the type of patriarchy we continue to live in. I really wish there was more about the individual responsibility because maybe it’s just me being triggered still, but I find that we are so quick to absolve… yeah it’s me being triggered still.
bell hooks gives us a lot to chew on and while some of the work and examples cited and discussed are sometimes very broad for my tastes, I think she offers up a lot of solutions and different aspects to consider when grappling with the ways that patriarchy exists in our lives and how it impacts how we connect with each other as humans.
The first couple of chapters from 1-5 triggered me repeatedly. It’s not complicated to say why, but it is! There’s something about looking into and attempting to understand the fluctuating emotional state of men and patriarchy that is uncomfortable and yet simultaneously necessary.
I always turn to bell hooks when I’m looking for internal peace around certain topics and she always offers up the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. Sometimes we’re able to deal and sometimes we’re not, hence the stopping and starting.
I appreciate the various lens that bell hooks applies to this topic. She delves deep into both nature and nurturing, as well as societal responsibility for the type of patriarchy we continue to live in. I really wish there was more about the individual responsibility because maybe it’s just me being triggered still, but I find that we are so quick to absolve… yeah it’s me being triggered still.
bell hooks gives us a lot to chew on and while some of the work and examples cited and discussed are sometimes very broad for my tastes, I think she offers up a lot of solutions and different aspects to consider when grappling with the ways that patriarchy exists in our lives and how it impacts how we connect with each other as humans.
May 23, 2011
When I developed my feminist sensibilities in the 1990s, it was bell hooks who was first to validate not only my place as a feminist man but to ardently argue for my space as a comrade in feminist work. It was going to take feminist women and feminist men collaborating together in order to do the work so desperately needed.
Ever since then, bell hooks has been a huge part in my growth as a feminist, teacher, and man. And since the publication of The Will to Change in 2004, I've probably returned to it a half dozen times, each time offering a bit of encouragement to continue to fight for gender equality and to do my part to interrupt the patriarchal narrative. Nearly all of my graduate study in English has been in some way informed by her vision.
bell hooks is a revelation; she is both brilliant and down-to-earth, revolutionary and full of love. She makes me think more than any other theorist, and I am forever indebted to her and her work.
Ever since then, bell hooks has been a huge part in my growth as a feminist, teacher, and man. And since the publication of The Will to Change in 2004, I've probably returned to it a half dozen times, each time offering a bit of encouragement to continue to fight for gender equality and to do my part to interrupt the patriarchal narrative. Nearly all of my graduate study in English has been in some way informed by her vision.
bell hooks is a revelation; she is both brilliant and down-to-earth, revolutionary and full of love. She makes me think more than any other theorist, and I am forever indebted to her and her work.
Read
April 6, 2022Pfioulala. C’était long. Tout d’abord disclaimer : comme avec Tout le monde peut être féministe, traduit en 2020 chez Divergences, on a accès à ce texte avec (ici) 17 ans de retard. Et forcément ça change beaucoup de choses. Par exemple, hooks passe beaucoup de temps à dire qu’il n’y a aucune ressource pour éduquer les garçons à rester des êtres sensibles, et en 2022 c’est faux, même en France on trouve assez facilement quand on veut de la littérature jeunesse et des ressources qui vont dans ce sens.
Ensuite, bon, of course je suis piquée dès qu’elle s’attaque aux « féministes qui haïssent les hommes ». Je comprends le pourquoi du comment, mais comme c’est mêlé à un discours très binaire sur le genre, ça me hérisse un peu. Au final encore une fois, 17 ans plus tard on a des livres comme Sortir de l’hétérosexualité de Juliet Drouar qui questionnent la pertinence de la distinction de genre. Alors quand hooks dit qu’il faut aimer la masculinité et les hommes quand ils sont entiers et pas le produit du patriarcat, moi je dis : on peut aussi abandonner ce concept de masculinité et de genre et juste aimer les gens parce qu’iels sont des personnes décentes et aimables.
J’ai aimé quand même, ça a provoqué beaucoup de réflexions, de remous en moi, pas forcément uniquement par le prisme de mes relations avec les hommes d’ailleurs. Ça parle de sentiments, d’amour, d’intégrité, et ça m’a fait réfléchir à moi-même à plein d’endroits. Mais c’est un peu répétitif et un peu long. Et définitivement 17 ans trop tard.
Ensuite, bon, of course je suis piquée dès qu’elle s’attaque aux « féministes qui haïssent les hommes ». Je comprends le pourquoi du comment, mais comme c’est mêlé à un discours très binaire sur le genre, ça me hérisse un peu. Au final encore une fois, 17 ans plus tard on a des livres comme Sortir de l’hétérosexualité de Juliet Drouar qui questionnent la pertinence de la distinction de genre. Alors quand hooks dit qu’il faut aimer la masculinité et les hommes quand ils sont entiers et pas le produit du patriarcat, moi je dis : on peut aussi abandonner ce concept de masculinité et de genre et juste aimer les gens parce qu’iels sont des personnes décentes et aimables.
J’ai aimé quand même, ça a provoqué beaucoup de réflexions, de remous en moi, pas forcément uniquement par le prisme de mes relations avec les hommes d’ailleurs. Ça parle de sentiments, d’amour, d’intégrité, et ça m’a fait réfléchir à moi-même à plein d’endroits. Mais c’est un peu répétitif et un peu long. Et définitivement 17 ans trop tard.
August 20, 2023
Compassionate feminism for men.
I loved, loved this incredibly compassionate book looking at how patriarchy harms men. Bell Hooks argues that you can critique patriarchy without hating men. She says that militant feminism chooses to hate men and does not recognize that women seek and hunger the love of husbands and fathers and it is the toxic barriers of patriarchy that prevent men from being emotionally available. But don't get me wrong, this book is not about criticizing feminism, it's about broadening its scope to include men. In patriarchy, men have to prove their worth through what they do by pretty much only exercising two emotions: fear and anger.
Quite swiftly during adolescence, boys are alienated from their emotions and become disenchanted from themselves and their families each becoming rogue miserable agents of anger and isolation. Patriarchy promises happiness to men by domination of women but when men are loosed upon a world that pretends like these rules don't exist, they are left with abandonment and and at what was implicitly promised to them. The back lash is violence, sociopathy and psychopathy. Patriarchy has everyone believe that sex is something men MUST have or they go crazy like wild animals, justifying their dominating behavior and what is essentially rape culture. But what has happened is men have been decoupled from intimacy and sex has been corrupted into this bizarre act of dominance and isolation. I don't think it's too big of a stretch to say that what most men perceive of as sex is enormously pathological.
Here's the truth the Hooks shows us about patriarchy: most men are actually NOT in control of anything and are depressed, frustrated, lonely and angry because the promise of patriarchal power to them was a lie.
I loved, loved this incredibly compassionate book looking at how patriarchy harms men. Bell Hooks argues that you can critique patriarchy without hating men. She says that militant feminism chooses to hate men and does not recognize that women seek and hunger the love of husbands and fathers and it is the toxic barriers of patriarchy that prevent men from being emotionally available. But don't get me wrong, this book is not about criticizing feminism, it's about broadening its scope to include men. In patriarchy, men have to prove their worth through what they do by pretty much only exercising two emotions: fear and anger.
Quite swiftly during adolescence, boys are alienated from their emotions and become disenchanted from themselves and their families each becoming rogue miserable agents of anger and isolation. Patriarchy promises happiness to men by domination of women but when men are loosed upon a world that pretends like these rules don't exist, they are left with abandonment and and at what was implicitly promised to them. The back lash is violence, sociopathy and psychopathy. Patriarchy has everyone believe that sex is something men MUST have or they go crazy like wild animals, justifying their dominating behavior and what is essentially rape culture. But what has happened is men have been decoupled from intimacy and sex has been corrupted into this bizarre act of dominance and isolation. I don't think it's too big of a stretch to say that what most men perceive of as sex is enormously pathological.
Here's the truth the Hooks shows us about patriarchy: most men are actually NOT in control of anything and are depressed, frustrated, lonely and angry because the promise of patriarchal power to them was a lie.
Read
June 1, 2020Can't really rate this book but bell hooks makes a lot of very interesting claims here, and I think men who consider themselves feminists or want the destruction of patriarchy would do good to read this book, as well as non-male feminists who grapple with the question of how challenging male identity and masculinity looks like in feminist thought. Bell hooks is pretty tough on the misandrist feminists in here and talks mostly about how patriarchy victimizes men via dehumanization and assigned gender roles and how feminist ideology and theory has largely been unable to talk about that. This was a very very interesting read that I will be thinking about for a while. Content warning for discussions of abuse and sexual assault though. Also note that bell hooks largely exclusively uses bioessentialist and gender binary language here.
July 9, 2024
i may go back and change my rating on this one after i dig a little more into the research she cites. i enjoyed 99% of it, but there were a few sweeping, inflammatory parts that i don’t fully disagree with but i feel like could have been misrepresented. that may just be me being picky, so i’m going to check it out and update!
September 5, 2021
A book that I feel really shows its age. This work is close to 20 years old, and reads like it.
The focus is essentually that men must do the transformative work of performing "feminist masculinity", which is meant to be a counterpoint to everything patriarchal. My main issue with this text is bell never seems to back up her assertions with quality evidence.
Often she makes blanket statements about men as a whole that seem to be heavily informed by her personal experiences with men. Additionally, her attempts to link her arguments to pop culture and media are clumsy and overwrought.
I will say, I appreciate her taking the time to point out ways men are hurt by patriarchal structures, as well as noting that the more militant arenas of feminism do not make space for men to share pain and grow. However, even this latter subject is treated with a slight air of condescension, sort of a "I'm-not-like-other-feminists" attitude.
As someone who marks themselves as a queer gender abolitionist of sorts, I found this book to be very heteronormative in how it describes relationships/family structures, as well as being completely focused on cis men.
Finally, the writing itself was just sorta bland and felt repetitive at times. Overall, bell tried and failed to present a few decent arguments without ever really setting out actual *steps* to assist men in their growth through love.
The focus is essentually that men must do the transformative work of performing "feminist masculinity", which is meant to be a counterpoint to everything patriarchal. My main issue with this text is bell never seems to back up her assertions with quality evidence.
Often she makes blanket statements about men as a whole that seem to be heavily informed by her personal experiences with men. Additionally, her attempts to link her arguments to pop culture and media are clumsy and overwrought.
I will say, I appreciate her taking the time to point out ways men are hurt by patriarchal structures, as well as noting that the more militant arenas of feminism do not make space for men to share pain and grow. However, even this latter subject is treated with a slight air of condescension, sort of a "I'm-not-like-other-feminists" attitude.
As someone who marks themselves as a queer gender abolitionist of sorts, I found this book to be very heteronormative in how it describes relationships/family structures, as well as being completely focused on cis men.
Finally, the writing itself was just sorta bland and felt repetitive at times. Overall, bell tried and failed to present a few decent arguments without ever really setting out actual *steps* to assist men in their growth through love.
January 2, 2019
This book changed my life. Everyone on Earth should read it. A feminist book about alleviating the burden of men seems inconceivable to feminism's many detractors but inside this book is an answer to all the loneliness, heartache and angry emotions that men feel. It provides a solution that isn't tamping them down in silence or being more rigorous with your rage. There is so much care and compassion inside that it truly transformed the way I think about myself and the choices I make. It strikes at the roots of the many problems with unbridled masculinity and has a lot of great answers to the angry dudes who are caught up in internet misogyny.
May 26, 2025
A bit of a self-help book mixed with left philosophy. It contains a useful differentiation of her position, which is good, from stereotypical 'antimale' or separatist feminism, on the one hand, and blithe upper class liberal feminism, on the other. The argument hopes to bring purported male persons into feminism by demonstrating that patriarchy damages everyone. This component is well argued. We could quibble with the definition of patriarchy provided, but it suffices for the purposes it's used here:
She wants to rehabilitate masculinity. I don't know if that's necessary; it and other gendered constructs could be scrapped, for all I care--though she is correct to highlight the defects in traditional masculinity, which is patriarchal. The position here is thus that "the crisis facing men is not the crisis of masculinity; it is the crisis of patriarchal masculinity" (32). Here the distinction is carefully drawn. I've noted in the discourse of Trump cultists that they fail to see such distinctions, not surprisingly. 'Toxic masculinity' (not a term used herein, but the mechanism is similar) is considered a slur by them against all purported male persons, as though the cultist can envision no form of masculinity that lacks toxicity (or dishonestly alleges that the adjective does not describe a subset of the noun). She cites Terrence Real for the proposition that 'Disconnection is masculinity,' and argues that this 'indoctrination' occurs across different household forms (61). Stated another way, not entirely consistently, "patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation" (66). This leads to patriarchal violence as "mental illness" (84).
This is contentious, of course: "When feminist women insist that all men are powerful oppressors who victimize from the location of power, they obscure the reality that many victimize from the location of victimization" (139). Insofar as "many radical feminists have been so enraged by male domination that they cannot acknowledge the possibility of male suffering" (id.), both sets appear to have fallen into an agambenian equivalence of lumpenized survivalism, afflicted sufficiently to have lost the ability empathize and fit into civil society, the bare life of the polis. Of course it would properly be subsets of 'radical feminists' (undefined and uncited) as well as of purported 'men' at issue in this proposition. This main line of argument then takes a turn from Goethe, in that "patriarchal culture has required of men that they be divided souls" simultaneous to a turn from Fanon in that "Learning to wear a mask [...] is the first lesson in patriarchal masculinity that a boy learns" (153). These two items are true in my experience, but the inference drawn from it overreaches: "Anyone who has a false self must be dishonest. People who learn to lie to themselves and others cannot love because they are crippled in their capacity to tell the truth and therefore unable to trust" (154). That's all just too hasty. She adopts part of this argument from M. Scott Peck, regarding compartmentalization, but then cites Nathaniel Branden (Ayn Rand's chief cultist, recall) for the remedy--so there's a mix of weird here to go along with her more regular interlocutors.
At times the text shows up as a product of its era, using an unsophisticated concept of sex differentiation, such as "Every day in America men are violent. Their violence is deemed 'natural' by the psychology of patriarchy, which insists that there is a biological connection between having a penis and the will to do violence" (55). I grouse at the uncritical usage of America to signify the United States, but the main problem here is the simple presentation of 'men' as defined by 'having a penis.' This simply won't work. That passage is complicated by the argument seeming to place the error in a paraphrase of an uncited and uncitable collective patriarchal psychology. It's the way Ayn Rand argues, and it's really awful, but we know that the error is in fact local to this text because it is reproduced later: "[Ending manhood] is a stance that seems to be more a reaction to patriarchal masculinity than a creative loving response that can separate maleness and manhood from all the identifying traits patriarchy has imposed on the self that has a penis" (115). We have better ideas now and need not rely on a solitary external anatomical signifier in order to maintain a silly sex binary that has its only basis in scripture.
That conceptual defect aside, the main problem with this text is that, if it is self-help pop psychology, it suffers from the regular defects of the genre, such as providing psychological terms to laypersons who will no doubt misuse them (myself included) as well as providing remedies that are too abstract to implement. Parenting books might boil down to 'stop yelling at your kids all the time and start loving them' and relationship books could state that 'couples need authentic connection.' Okay, thanks for that? This seems to boil down to similar bromides without concrete remedies, unless the remedy is transforming one's thinking--or perhaps thinking for the first time--about sex, gender, and so on. A dose of this sort of feminist argument is likely overdue for a number of readers.
There is a marxist component here. Fromm is cited tangentially at one point, but the argument bears the traces more centrally:
We then receive a citation to the Dalai Lama, regarding how "He shares the belief that all humans desire happiness and that a principal characteristic of genuine happiness is inner peace, which he links to developing concern for others. His soulful message echoes that of feminist thinkers who are telling the world that men can heal their spirits by developing relational skills--the ability to experience empathy, to care for others" (149). This thesis creates two difficulties for the argument. First, the goal of ataraxia is a primary objective of stoics and skeptics, which might be considered a component of the patriarchal masculinism otherwise under critique. More significantly, though, this proposition construes the end of ethics to be an aesthetics: if you want to heal, to experience peace, to achieve ataraxia, then you should care for others. It is not offensive as an ethical proposition, but it has become one of my abiding interests to note that often in ethical writing the objective is aesthetic. My hypothesis is that it is dangerous to transform desire into duty, to substitute 'you should' for 'I want.'
Recommended for those who see that laughter can be a weapon of patriarchal terrorism.
a political system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especailly females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. (18)This is considered a system that terrorizes young men first of all, breaking them of alleged 'weakness' as children, and that their mothers are not absolved of responsibility--"Patriarchy demands of men that they become and remain emotional cripples" (27), denying them "full access to their freedom of will" (id.). She doesn't connect this line of argument to privilege arguments, but this is one way to think about privilege--that it creates a disability in its beneficiaries; marxism might describe this sort of emotional disability as false consciousness, NB.
She wants to rehabilitate masculinity. I don't know if that's necessary; it and other gendered constructs could be scrapped, for all I care--though she is correct to highlight the defects in traditional masculinity, which is patriarchal. The position here is thus that "the crisis facing men is not the crisis of masculinity; it is the crisis of patriarchal masculinity" (32). Here the distinction is carefully drawn. I've noted in the discourse of Trump cultists that they fail to see such distinctions, not surprisingly. 'Toxic masculinity' (not a term used herein, but the mechanism is similar) is considered a slur by them against all purported male persons, as though the cultist can envision no form of masculinity that lacks toxicity (or dishonestly alleges that the adjective does not describe a subset of the noun). She cites Terrence Real for the proposition that 'Disconnection is masculinity,' and argues that this 'indoctrination' occurs across different household forms (61). Stated another way, not entirely consistently, "patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation" (66). This leads to patriarchal violence as "mental illness" (84).
This is contentious, of course: "When feminist women insist that all men are powerful oppressors who victimize from the location of power, they obscure the reality that many victimize from the location of victimization" (139). Insofar as "many radical feminists have been so enraged by male domination that they cannot acknowledge the possibility of male suffering" (id.), both sets appear to have fallen into an agambenian equivalence of lumpenized survivalism, afflicted sufficiently to have lost the ability empathize and fit into civil society, the bare life of the polis. Of course it would properly be subsets of 'radical feminists' (undefined and uncited) as well as of purported 'men' at issue in this proposition. This main line of argument then takes a turn from Goethe, in that "patriarchal culture has required of men that they be divided souls" simultaneous to a turn from Fanon in that "Learning to wear a mask [...] is the first lesson in patriarchal masculinity that a boy learns" (153). These two items are true in my experience, but the inference drawn from it overreaches: "Anyone who has a false self must be dishonest. People who learn to lie to themselves and others cannot love because they are crippled in their capacity to tell the truth and therefore unable to trust" (154). That's all just too hasty. She adopts part of this argument from M. Scott Peck, regarding compartmentalization, but then cites Nathaniel Branden (Ayn Rand's chief cultist, recall) for the remedy--so there's a mix of weird here to go along with her more regular interlocutors.
At times the text shows up as a product of its era, using an unsophisticated concept of sex differentiation, such as "Every day in America men are violent. Their violence is deemed 'natural' by the psychology of patriarchy, which insists that there is a biological connection between having a penis and the will to do violence" (55). I grouse at the uncritical usage of America to signify the United States, but the main problem here is the simple presentation of 'men' as defined by 'having a penis.' This simply won't work. That passage is complicated by the argument seeming to place the error in a paraphrase of an uncited and uncitable collective patriarchal psychology. It's the way Ayn Rand argues, and it's really awful, but we know that the error is in fact local to this text because it is reproduced later: "[Ending manhood] is a stance that seems to be more a reaction to patriarchal masculinity than a creative loving response that can separate maleness and manhood from all the identifying traits patriarchy has imposed on the self that has a penis" (115). We have better ideas now and need not rely on a solitary external anatomical signifier in order to maintain a silly sex binary that has its only basis in scripture.
That conceptual defect aside, the main problem with this text is that, if it is self-help pop psychology, it suffers from the regular defects of the genre, such as providing psychological terms to laypersons who will no doubt misuse them (myself included) as well as providing remedies that are too abstract to implement. Parenting books might boil down to 'stop yelling at your kids all the time and start loving them' and relationship books could state that 'couples need authentic connection.' Okay, thanks for that? This seems to boil down to similar bromides without concrete remedies, unless the remedy is transforming one's thinking--or perhaps thinking for the first time--about sex, gender, and so on. A dose of this sort of feminist argument is likely overdue for a number of readers.
There is a marxist component here. Fromm is cited tangentially at one point, but the argument bears the traces more centrally:
Within modern advanced capitalist society, masculine power was traditionally seen as synonymous with the ability of males to provide financially. However, as more and more women have gained access to the work sphere, the sphere of provision, this centrally defining attribute of patriarchal masculinity has lost significance. Gender equality in the workforce freed lots of men to speak their truth that they were not necessarily interested in the role of provider. Many men were happy with the idea that feminism was teaching women that they should pay their own way. Concurrently, as feminist movement and the so-called sexual revolution changed then notion that sexual action and initiation were exclusively the province of males, another signifier of patriarchal masculinity lost meaning. Gender-based changes in the workforce and in sexual politics meant that sex roles were modified for a vast majority of people, especially females, yet even so, patriarchal notions of masculinity remained intact, even when those notions did not have a reality base. Hence the crisis in masculinity. (126)A more explicitly marxist argument might point out that the 'crisis in masculinity' is a good example of false consciousness coming undone wherein residual ideological superstructure has come into contradiction with the transformed material base, which has changed underneath it and rendered it obsolete. This argument crushes out several patriarchal embers, if only the adherents thereof would assimilate it.
We then receive a citation to the Dalai Lama, regarding how "He shares the belief that all humans desire happiness and that a principal characteristic of genuine happiness is inner peace, which he links to developing concern for others. His soulful message echoes that of feminist thinkers who are telling the world that men can heal their spirits by developing relational skills--the ability to experience empathy, to care for others" (149). This thesis creates two difficulties for the argument. First, the goal of ataraxia is a primary objective of stoics and skeptics, which might be considered a component of the patriarchal masculinism otherwise under critique. More significantly, though, this proposition construes the end of ethics to be an aesthetics: if you want to heal, to experience peace, to achieve ataraxia, then you should care for others. It is not offensive as an ethical proposition, but it has become one of my abiding interests to note that often in ethical writing the objective is aesthetic. My hypothesis is that it is dangerous to transform desire into duty, to substitute 'you should' for 'I want.'
Recommended for those who see that laughter can be a weapon of patriarchal terrorism.
May 2, 2025
I think I’m really going to have to give it to bell hooks and I also completely understand why so much of her work is trusted and revered but also even after spending some time post putting this book down I think I’m going to have to sit with some things because this stuck me in a very dee and very real way. As a man who grew up in an abusive environment and one riddled with deep root beliefs and standings in old school masculinity, I never had a role model or even direction for what a man’s dealings with compassion, love, and even connectivity would even mean let alone look like. Thankfully through some tough strides of growth and the amazing strength and determination from my life partner and ultimate supporter (my wife) along with the sad but necessary separation from people who embody and hold these tainted and negative beliefs close to their hearts, I’ve been able to uncover my own heart and feelings and as a new father I’ve found an even greater focus and drive to control and hone what a father should be and act like both for my own well being and positive life relationships, but also to be that role model and example to my son that he deeply deserves and my child self did as well but didn’t sadly receive. I think everyone either man or in a relationship with one should at least give this a skim through and hopefully we as a society can not only break down some of these archaic and negative biological stereotypes than who knows how wonderful and bright of a future we can lay and leave for our children. 4.25/5
April 26, 2017
I have complicated feelings about this book. I really strongly agreed with parts of it, but there were also parts that completely missed the mark for me. I wonder if some of the gap between myself and the author is generational. The men that have been present throughout my life are not nearly so callus or emotionally blocked off as the ones described in the book. It also emphasized spirituality and the soul too much for my taste, and I felt that those aspects strongly undermined the arguments in a few chapters. I agree that we condition most boys to be patriarchal men, and that there are many emotionally repressed men around us as a result. I also feel like healing will only be possible through compassion. I think I agree with both the underlying idea and the ultimate goal of the book, but I still found it frustrating and somewhat out of touch. I suspect I'm just not the target audience here.
July 12, 2022
Nie czytałem jeszcze chyba nic, co opowiadałoby o mężczyznach i męskości z punktu widzenia feminizmu, co było ciekawym odejściem od moich poprzednich doświadczeń. Książka bell hooks wydana została niemal 20 lat temu i z jednej strony w niektórych miejscach wyraźnie czuć ciężar jej wieku, ale z drugiej nadal jest w pewien sposób rewolucyjna- mnóstwo tu ciekawych przemyśleń z różnych punktów widzenia. Dałbym 5 gwiazdek, ale brakowało mi uwzględnienia chociażby osób transpłciowych- płeć czy tożsamość płciowa jest w książce utożsamiana często jednoznacznie z genitaliami, a autorka opisuje wyłącznie hetero- i homoseksualne osoby cispłciowe. Plus za przypisy tłumaczki, które również tę kwestię poruszają.
March 18, 2015
This book absolutely changed my life. How often do you get to say that? Even better, it was a gift from one of my daughters (who was then surprised that I read it!)
It told me more about myself, my upbringing, and my place in the world than I could have imagined. If this were required reading for every member of modern society, the world would be a more habitable place. It could literally end war…
It's not easy, but neither is life. Women and men will both gain new insight into how we are all perpetuating injustice and anger and disconnection in our world.
It told me more about myself, my upbringing, and my place in the world than I could have imagined. If this were required reading for every member of modern society, the world would be a more habitable place. It could literally end war…
It's not easy, but neither is life. Women and men will both gain new insight into how we are all perpetuating injustice and anger and disconnection in our world.
August 22, 2022
I found valuable insights in this work, but I also found significant flaws. For starters, I was irritated that there were no citations or bibliography for the works hooks quotes. I get that this is intended to be a popular work, but all that scholarly stuff is really easy to ignore in a book if you don't care about it--people do it all the time--and really hard to do without if you want it. I also found a few significant editing errors.
But mostly I was bugged at the frequency with which hooks makes grandiose, superlative statements that have no real support and don't actually withstand scrutiny. For instance, she writes, “Whether watching daytime soap operas, a porn channel, or X-rated movies, children in our nation are more aware of the body and of sexuality than ever before” (77).
Really? Seriously? What basis is there for making this claim? Plenty of children in the past grew up on farms and knew quite a bit about the sexual habits of a range of animals. Plenty of children grew up in one-room cabins or tenements; if anyone in the household had sex, everyone would have been in the room for it. People were born, got ill, convalesced, died, and were prepared for burial AT HOME, and kids would have seen bodies in such states.
hooks also writes, "Sexist roles restrict the identity formation of male and female children, but the process is far more damaging to boys because not only are the roles required of them more rigid and confining, but they are much more likely to receive severe punishment when they deviate from those roles" (154).
What? What evidence does she have for this claim? And is it even a competition? Do we need to label "the process" as "far more damaging" for boys than for girls?
There's all sorts of anecdotal evidence to suggest that hooks is wrong--for starters, the fact that boyish misbehavior is often brushed off with the adage that "boys will be boys," and no corresponding adage exists for girls. There is the expectation still common in conservative religious communities that girls will want nothing more than to grow up and be wives and mothers, and that in those roles, they will defer to men. Girls who refuse can be beaten, locked up, and, in really repressive situations, married to men three times their age. There is scholarly evidence about the extent to which girls' self-esteem plunges as they age, in ways boys don't experience. There is the body loathing girls experience at a higher rate than boys. There is the fact that girls are three times more likely than boys to self-harm. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahael...
There's even an article and video in today's NY Times about the way menstruating girls are treated as untouchable in Nepal. Girls on their periods aren't even allowed to look at boys or men, because it's believed that the glance of a menstruating girl is so defiling that it can kill males. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/op...
But even aside from all that evidence, you can look at those facts without saying that girls' gender socialization is more damaging than boys. You can just talk about how bad it is and not assume that girls' shitty lives means all boys are doing great, which is a claim I have never heard a feminist make, so I don't know why hooks needs to make the inverse claim for boys' greater harm.
It's sloppy and lazy and it means that "The Will to Change" is not, as the cover proclaims, actually a work of social science, because it doesn't even aspire to social scientific methodology. Instead, it's a sermon or moral philosophy, and not especially thoughtful or careful moral philosophy.
hooks also blames women more than men for the perpetuation of patriarchy for a variety of reasons: she asserts that "most of us learned patriarchal attitudes in our family of origin, and they were usually taught to us by our mothers" (23). So women have to be the ones to teach kids something else.
The catch is that when men have been educated about alternate ways of being, "Most men chose not to change” (127). hooks doesn't adequately deal with this fact; instead, she lists more ways that women don't fix men. For one thing, not enough feminists write feminist novels--because there's such a huge market for them?
It's not a terrible book, but it's not nearly as good as it could be, and I'm just so disappointed.
But mostly I was bugged at the frequency with which hooks makes grandiose, superlative statements that have no real support and don't actually withstand scrutiny. For instance, she writes, “Whether watching daytime soap operas, a porn channel, or X-rated movies, children in our nation are more aware of the body and of sexuality than ever before” (77).
Really? Seriously? What basis is there for making this claim? Plenty of children in the past grew up on farms and knew quite a bit about the sexual habits of a range of animals. Plenty of children grew up in one-room cabins or tenements; if anyone in the household had sex, everyone would have been in the room for it. People were born, got ill, convalesced, died, and were prepared for burial AT HOME, and kids would have seen bodies in such states.
hooks also writes, "Sexist roles restrict the identity formation of male and female children, but the process is far more damaging to boys because not only are the roles required of them more rigid and confining, but they are much more likely to receive severe punishment when they deviate from those roles" (154).
What? What evidence does she have for this claim? And is it even a competition? Do we need to label "the process" as "far more damaging" for boys than for girls?
There's all sorts of anecdotal evidence to suggest that hooks is wrong--for starters, the fact that boyish misbehavior is often brushed off with the adage that "boys will be boys," and no corresponding adage exists for girls. There is the expectation still common in conservative religious communities that girls will want nothing more than to grow up and be wives and mothers, and that in those roles, they will defer to men. Girls who refuse can be beaten, locked up, and, in really repressive situations, married to men three times their age. There is scholarly evidence about the extent to which girls' self-esteem plunges as they age, in ways boys don't experience. There is the body loathing girls experience at a higher rate than boys. There is the fact that girls are three times more likely than boys to self-harm. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahael...
There's even an article and video in today's NY Times about the way menstruating girls are treated as untouchable in Nepal. Girls on their periods aren't even allowed to look at boys or men, because it's believed that the glance of a menstruating girl is so defiling that it can kill males. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/op...
But even aside from all that evidence, you can look at those facts without saying that girls' gender socialization is more damaging than boys. You can just talk about how bad it is and not assume that girls' shitty lives means all boys are doing great, which is a claim I have never heard a feminist make, so I don't know why hooks needs to make the inverse claim for boys' greater harm.
It's sloppy and lazy and it means that "The Will to Change" is not, as the cover proclaims, actually a work of social science, because it doesn't even aspire to social scientific methodology. Instead, it's a sermon or moral philosophy, and not especially thoughtful or careful moral philosophy.
hooks also blames women more than men for the perpetuation of patriarchy for a variety of reasons: she asserts that "most of us learned patriarchal attitudes in our family of origin, and they were usually taught to us by our mothers" (23). So women have to be the ones to teach kids something else.
The catch is that when men have been educated about alternate ways of being, "Most men chose not to change” (127). hooks doesn't adequately deal with this fact; instead, she lists more ways that women don't fix men. For one thing, not enough feminists write feminist novels--because there's such a huge market for them?
It's not a terrible book, but it's not nearly as good as it could be, and I'm just so disappointed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,799 reviews