this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
86 points (100.0% liked)

menby

8001 readers
1 users here now

A space for masculine folks to talk about living under patriarchy.

Detoxing masculinity since 1990!

You don’t get points for feminism, feminism is expected.

Guidelines:

  1. Questions over blame
  2. Humility over pride
  3. Wisdom over dogma
  4. Actions over image

Rules (expansions on the guidelines):

  1. Mistakes should be learning experiences when possible.
    • Do not attack comrades displaying vulnerability for what they acknowledge are mistakes.
    • If you see good-faith behavior that's toxic, do your best to explain why it's toxic.
    • If you don't have the energy to engage, report and move on.
    • This includes past mistakes. If you've overcome extreme reactionary behavior, we'd love to know how.
    • A widened range of acceptable discussion means a greater need for sensitivity and patience for your comrades.
    • Examples:
      • "This is reactionary. Here's why."
      • "I know that {reality}, but I feel like {toxicity}"
      • "I don't understand why this is reactionary, but it feels like it {spoilered details}"
  2. You are not entitled to the emotional labor of others.
    • Constantly info-dumping and letting us sort through your psyche is not healthy for any of us.
    • If you feel a criticism of you is unfair, do not lash out.
    • If you can't engage self-critically, delete your post.
    • If you don't know how to phrase why it's unfair, say so.
  3. No singular masculine ideal.
    • This includes promoting gender-neutral traits like "courage" or "integrity" as "manly".
    • Suggestions for an individual to replace a toxic ideal is fine.
    • Don't reinforce the idea the fulfillment requires masculinity.
    • This also includes tendency struggle-sessions.
  4. No lifestyle content.
    • Post the picture of your new grill in !food (feminine people like grills too smh my head).
    • Post the picture of the fish you caught in !sports (feminine people like fish too smdh my damn head).
    • At best, stuff like this is off-topic. At worst, it's reinforcing genders norms..
    • If you're not trying to be seen as masculine for your lifestyle content, it's irrelevant to this comm. If you are trying to be seen as masculine, let's have a discussion about why these things are seen as masculine.

Resources:

*The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love by Bell Hooks

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello comrades, it's time for our third discussion thread for The Will to Change, covering Chapters 6 (Work: What's Love Got To Do With It?) and 7 (Feminist Manhood). Thanks to everyone who participated the last few weeks, I’m looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts again. And if you’re just joining the book club this week, welcome!

Chapter 6 discusses the role of work under patriarchy and how capitalism forces men and women alike to not only work long hours to survive, but to prioritize supporting themselves and their families financially over any sort of healing and growing. Chapter 7 delves into how men can apply feminist thought practically to support the well-being of themselves and the people around them.

If you haven't read the book yet but would like to, its available free on the Internet Archive in text form, as well as an audiobook on Youtube with content warnings at the start of each chapter, courtesy of the Anarchist Audio Library, and as an audiobook on our very own TankieTube! (note: the YT version is missing the Preface but the Tankietube version has it)

As always let me know if you'd like to be added to the ping list!

Our next discussion will be on Chapters 8 (Popular Culture: Media Masculinity) and 9 (Healing Male Spirit), beginning on 12/25. That thread will likely stay up a little longer than usual as I'm sure many people will be busy around the end of the year and I want to give everyone the opportunity to share their thoughts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

hooks’ description of the emotionally crippling nature of work under capitalism in chapter 6 is really striking and enhances everything else she’s talked about up to this point by reminding us, the reader, that all of these attritbutes of patriarchy are taking place within the economic system of capitalism. She writes:

Of course [sexist men and women] do not critique the economy that makes it necessary for all adults to work outside the home; instead they pretend that feminism keeps women in the workforce. Most women work because they want to leave the house and because their families need the income to survive, not because they are feminists who believe that their working is a sign of liberation.

This, combined with her describing a system under which men and women alike have the opportunity to take breaks from work solely for self-care and forming meaningful relationships, really drives home the idea that patriarchy will never be totally dismantled until capitalism is dismantled alongside it. The ruling class doesn’t want emotionally and relationally mature workers, they want loyal servants who put the sale of their labor above everything else.

She adds: “...individual men are engaged in the work of emotional recovery every day, but the work is not easy because they have no support systems within patriarchal culture, especially if they are poor and working-class.” In other places in the chapter she distinguishes between feminist theory written largely by class-privileged writers and how they’re out of touch with the lived experiences of poor and working-class women who understand male (and their own) dissatisfaction with work much better. The way work overrides all other aspects of life under capitalism is a huge reason why it’s so hard for men to heal and grow emotionally because who has the fucking time?

Chapter 7 is a bit of a mixed bag for me. Like earlier in the book, hooks only speaks in terms of the gender binary without any discussion of trans and NB identities, which imo really undercuts the point she’s trying to make about reclaiming masculinity and “male bodies” by literally defining “male being” as “of the human body that has a penis”. Like I understand her broad point but idk if she is simply leaving out queer identities (apart from a few mentions of gay men) to make the book more stomachable for cishet men and women who may be new to feminist ideas, or if she simply doesn’t have good insight into how queer people fit into this picture. Either way it did not vibe right with me at all.

She does go on to share some great insight into who the mindsets of men need to change, namely away from the “dominator model” to something healthier:

What the world needs now is liberated men who have the qualities Silverstein cites, men who are “empathic and strong, autonomous and connected, responsible to self, to family and friends, and to society, and capable of understanding how those responsibilities are, ultimately, inseparable.” Men need feminist thinking. It is the theory that supports their spiritual evolution and their shift away from the patriarchal model. Patriarchy is destroying the well-being of men, taking their lives daily.

Yes that’s right mascs of Hexbear, believe it or not you actually have a responsibility to your fellow comrades and society as a whole. No you do not get a free pass to come in and shit the place up with paragraphs defending your imaginary right to say whatever shit you want without any repercussions or moderation. So many of you are still locked into the dominator model that hooks describes here, but you DO NOT HAVE to maintain this, and you CAN NOT if you want a happier and healthier emotional world.

I’ll end with this banger quote that I absolutely love. Again, every masc on this site should at least read this (emphasis mine):

A Masai wise man, when asked by Terrence Real to name the traits of a good warrior, replied, “I refuse to tell you what makes a good morani [warrior]. But I will tell you what makes a great morani. When the moment calls for fierceness, a good morani is very ferocious. And when the moment calls for kindness, a good morani is utterly tender. Now, what makes a great morani is knowing which moment is which.” We see that females who are raised with the traits any person of integrity embodies can act with tenderness, with assertiveness, and with aggression if and when aggression is needed.

Men who are able to be whole, undivided selves can practice the emotional discernment beautifully described by the Masai wise man precisely because they are able to relate and respond rather than simply react. Patriarchal masculinity confines men to various stages of reaction and overreaction. Feminist masculinity does not reproduce the notion that maleness has this reactionary, wild, uncontrolled component; instead it assures men and those of us who care about men that we need not fear male loss of control. The power of patriarchy has been to make maleness feared and to make men feel that it is better to be feared than to be loved. Whether they can confess this or not, men know that it just is not true.

I will probably post more thoughts later after I’ve considered these chapters more. Lots of great stuff in here despite my reservations about her lack of queer identity discussion.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Chapter 7 is a bit of a mixed bag for me. Like earlier in the book, hooks only speaks in terms of the gender binary without any discussion of trans and NB identities, which imo really undercuts the point she’s trying to make about reclaiming masculinity and “male bodies” by literally defining “male being” as “of the human body that has a penis”. Like I understand her broad point but idk if she is simply leaving out queer identities (apart from a few mentions of gay men) to make the book more stomachable for cishet men and women who may be new to feminist ideas, or if she simply doesn’t have good insight into how queer people fit into this picture. Either way it did not vibe right with me at all.

I got the same impression. Will need to write an effortpost about how that chapters' content plays out for me as a trans person. There's good, productive stuff in there, but also a part that really did not sit well with me and the feeling that she doesn't fully get to the point specifically because she writes from a cisnormative perspective.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

There’s good, productive stuff in there, but also a part that really did not sit well with me and the feeling that she doesn’t fully get to the point specifically because she writes from a cisnormative perspective.

I think this whole book doesn't take into account queer identities well. But not every book can be perfect in all ways so we should critical where she fails but give her grace. I think there are lots of good points in here that need a slight twist to be more inclusive for queer and gender nonconforming identifies.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Chapter 7 is a bit of a mixed bag for me. Like earlier in the book, hooks only speaks in terms of the gender binary without any discussion of trans and NB identities, which imo really undercuts the point she’s trying to make about reclaiming masculinity and “male bodies” by literally defining “male being” as “of the human body that has a penis”. Like I understand her broad point but idk if she is simply leaving out queer identities (apart from a few mentions of gay men) to make the book more stomachable for cishet men and women who may be new to feminist ideas, or if she simply doesn’t have good insight into how queer people fit into this picture. Either way it did not vibe right with me at all.

I think we should give her more credit about this oversight. This book is 20 year old at this point so trans/NB identities were much less visible and understood. So based on the time and cultural at that point it makes sense that this definition is date because it is dated. But we can take what is useful and discard the rest.

Moreover, those who have redefined their own gender already understand what gender means to them. Those of us who are cis have made this decision conscientiously or more likely unexamined gender at all. So it makes sense to focus on a cis audience since the majority haven't thought about gender at all. Those who are gender nonconforming have thought deeply about gender than most. Moreover, those who are gender non-conforming should give their own experience instead of being talk at by those who are not. As someone who is Cis-Het (like bell hooks) I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about trans/NB identities and I think she feels the same way.

That being said removing the part about having a Penis from the definition should be done for a modern audience.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Yes to the first part about the book being old, but, respectfully, no to the second part.

As someone who is Cis-Het (like bell hooks) I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about trans/NB identities

I get the sentiment, but as someone with a privileged gender role, you have a special duty to use this privilege to spread awareness about the struggles of trans/NB/agender people. You have less backlash from reactionaries to fear if you do. You can do so as an ally and without assuming their perspectives.

Cis audiences not having thought about gender only means they have a need to hear about other perspectives all the more. Non-cis people having thought about it in a repressive society means they need affirmation.