"The Will To Change" - a couple of thoughts

Puzzleheaded_Pea_889 · 2024-07-14T17:00:51+00:00

I had a lengthy discussion on exactly this book on a different thread, so I'll just copy my main criticism of it here. Do note that most of my criticisms stem from later chapters, so you may not yet have gotten to the parts I'm referring to:

I would consider [Bell Hooks's] writings to be closer to gaslighting disguised as sympathy than a real discussion of male issues. She plays off the usual feminist stereotypes and negative attitudes towards men such as the "male obsession with sex" and "male fragility" but tries to convince us she's saying it for our own good. For example, in several sections she insists that watching porn is how men "take revenge on the female body", in another she insists that the desire for casual sex is a symptom of a "disease" that needs to be cured in therapy, in another section she insists that men don't actually understand their own feelings and need women to explain what our feelings actually are, and in another she claims that males get angry at feminist criticism because subconsciously we think they're right about everything. In other words, preying on common male insecurities followed by trying to convince us that feminists understand men's feelings better than men do.

Sure, she's written stuff I agree with too, such as wanting men to express their feelings more and about how men are afraid to express affection, but so do supposedly "toxic" thinkers like Jordan Peterson. And more importantly, telling people to love themselves doesn't exactly come across as sympathetic when it's followed by an explanation of how our natural feelings are a symptom of a disease. Bell Hooks also blames men's fear of self-expression on the patriarchy and refuses to acknowledge (at least in any of what I've read) how feminism has been a major driver of this fear (eg constantly telling us that our "gaze" is predatory or that expressing our feelings to an intimate partner is "trauma dumping").

Extreme_Spread9636 · 2024-07-14T12:52:49+00:00

Assuming that the "patriarchy" exist, which it doesn't, what solution does feminism provide to replace this patriarchy? They don't provide something different that doesn't hurt us. They're providing almost the identical concept of patriarchy without the rewards. Just like all the other concepts they come up with, they're just reinventing the wheel and putting their own name on it to make it look like they came up with some miraculous solution that saves us all.

Blauwpetje · 2024-07-14T08:34:36+00:00

‘Patriarchy hurts men too’ is the almost caricatural textbook feminist pseudo pro-male cliche and everybody studying men’s issues for a while knows that. No doubt you mean well, but frankly you maybe should inform yourself more about the animosity between feminism and men’s issues, if only by reading the posts on this sub, to understand why the likes of bell hooks aren’t exactly popular here. Neither, contrary to what you seem to believe, is intersectionality, though a minority here might like it; and hardly any contributor to this sub believes in the existence of patriarchy.

independance_soft1 · 2024-07-14T13:25:40+00:00

Never heard of the author, but I will use your synopsis to assume her premise.

I disagree with the assumption that the world is, and had always been patriarchal, a simple look at history proves that it is far more complicated, and that feminist revisionism is objectively false in most cases.

I disagree with intersectionality as a concept, our problems are our own, and the ideals from this way of thinking produced identity politics, and poor advocates in any given lobby/group.

If I ever get about to reading the book I'll say something about the 3rd and 4th points if it comes up again.

Feminists like Fiamengo, Paglia and Sommers tend to be more favored in the MRM, from what I hear of Kael, she'd likely be favored too, but I have never read her work.

Maffioze · 2024-07-14T16:38:40+00:00

I mean no offense, but I rolled my eyes at this post.

Why are you expecting us to positively discuss a book from an author who uses caricatural descriptions of men and blames them for pretty much everything.

rump_truck · 2024-07-14T13:50:42+00:00

I recently read it, and I agree with her about the problems, but I disagree about the solution.

I think she did a great job of identifying the problems. It was the first time I read something written by a feminist about men, and got the sense that she asked men about their problems and actually listened. Most of the time feminists are like "I suppose it's theoretically possible for women to shut down men's emotions, but in practice it's always men shutting down men's emotions, so it's still men's fault" in a way that corresponds to exactly 0 men's real experiences.

She understood that the system doesn't love men or cherish us in any way. It expects us to produce economic value in times of peace, and to produce violence in times of war. Those who are willing to sacrifice more of themselves to do so get promoted up the hierarchy, there's no free lunch simply for being male. Many in this sub disagree with the label patriarchy, but I think they would agree with her interpretation of how it works much more than other feminists' interpretations of it.

She spends a good chunk of the book complaining about other feminists. That other feminists don't care to understand men's issues, that they have no interest in solving men's issues, that some of them even see them as a sort of justice for how men have hurt women. But then she says that the solution is more feminism. Not more of the flawed feminism that she is calling out, but true ideologically pure feminism. That was where I got off.

I believe in the systems thinking principle of the purpose of a system is what it does. You can claim that the purpose of capitalism is to lift people out of poverty, but if it actually traps people in poverty to exploit them instead, then the purpose is to exploit people. The pure capitalism doesn't actually exist, we have to deal with capitalism as it actually exists.

If feminism is supposed to be about equality, but feminists consistently fight against equality where men's issues are concerned, then the purpose is to help women at the expense of men. And adding more of a system that helps women at the expense of men isn't going to solve men's issues that are caused in large part by women. We need a new system, designed from the ground up to help both.

YallGotAnyBeanz · 2024-07-14T19:02:47+00:00

People don’t like her because she’s wrong on a foundational level, even if she performs concern trolling like saying men are victims too. Fact of the matter is “Le Patriarchy” is just the feminist version of “We live in a society”

eli_ashe · 2024-07-14T18:20:17+00:00

the problem with hooks is that while she oft recognizes the issues within feminism and women's mode of treatment of men, she erroneously ascribing those problems to the patriarchy rather than just acknowledging that women have agency and are doing those things themselves, for their own gain and self-importance.

she labors fruitlessly under the belief that there is an overarching patriarchy.

but i do actually agree that hooks is worth a read, cause as long as you understand and recognize her error is ascribing these problems to the patriarchy, she is oft quite insightful especially in her criticisms of feminism and women's culture, oft especially as it maintains racial hierarchies within it, and how it tends towards harming men.

i think her books are worth a read, tho she is quite abrasive towards men, which means that a lot of people in this crowd would find her a difficult read.

to the OP, i'd strongly suggest as you read hooks that you translate her ascription of the problems she describes to patriarchy as being actually just directly applicable to women and feminism. When she criticizes women's culture and feminist beliefs, take those criticisms seriously, they are astute. when she ascribes them as caused by a patriarchy, understand she's deflecting responsibility from women, whom she is. its just self serving. and when she describes problems in the culture writ large as being 'patriarchal' in form, just translate that as being 'heteronormative complex', meaning that there are women and men who benefit from those structures together, and each act with agency towards their maintenance.

fwiw, this technique is oft useful for reading feminist lit across the board, e.g. when they say 'patriarchy causes women to do thus and such', just translate that to 'women do thus and such because it benefits them to do so'.

KordisMenthis · 2024-07-14T23:54:53+00:00

Bell Hooks is better than a lot of feminists regarding mens issues but you still won't find much enthusiasm for her in this subreddit since she still comes from the 'patriarchy hurts men too' angle, whereas this subreddit general does not approach things from a feminism/patriarchy angle and is generally fairly anti-feminist despite being otherwise left wing.

_-_010_-_ · 2024-07-15T02:21:42+00:00

I agree in wishing to see a fair, unbiased dissection here, but I'm not the right person for that for several reasons. But even if people here approached it in an unbiased way and looked past the issues with "patriarchy", the review would end up quite negative.

In short, she represents the
b) reality as conceived by ~~women~~ "good feminists" and not
c) reality as conceived by men.

And I use "good feminist" in the way that people nowadays use "nice guy".

Fifthly is the important point. I can forgive bell hooks for her shortcomings, but why is she still the one that feminists point to as the best they have to offer for men?

We're not all conscious of patriarchy though, and that's the crux of the matter. Many MRAs dismiss anyone mentioning patriarchy out of hand, and that's often reasonable, but there are valid points that get missed by not trying to understand what the other side is truly trying to say. More importantly, talking about patriarchy (and you can mentally substitute it for whatever vague term) is necessary to reach feminists sometimes. On the other side, bell hooks and her "good feminists" are not conscious of patriarchy either.

"Patriarchy" means something completely different in "Patriarchy hurts men" than it does in "Feminism is against the Patriarchy", and feminists only understand the second meaning, they only want to understand that. Not all of the gendered expectations that men traditionally face are about dominating women and men or about serving powerful men. In fact, most are not.

Telling men not to cry doesn't make them stronger leaders. Patriarchal women just don't want to deal with men having emotions. The massive problem with the "good feminists" is that they bend their understanding of reality to fit around their idea of patriarchy rather than the other way around. They really need to stop only looking for the problems in others and admit they're as deeply patriarchal as the people they accuse of it. Until then they'll just make up new excuses to uphold the same old gender roles for men. Men crying in front of women is now "making them do unpaid emotional labor".

If "good feminists" want to live up to the name they've given themselves and fight for equality, they have to actually listen to men and build their understanding on that, not force their flawed framework onto men.

Low_Rich_5436 · 2024-07-15T05:13:10+00:00

No we are not all conscious of patriarchy, intersetcionality, etc.

Patriarchy is a conspiracy theory with men in the role of the villains. Intersectionalism is nazism for leftists: it categorizes people on a hierarchical scale and encourages preemptive discrimination.

To top it all off, as you wrote Bell Hooks didn't apply anything ressembling a scientific approach, yet she has now become a reference in "academic" circles. She's the Sigmund Freud of gender studies : a harmful hack hiding behind good intentions.

Comments