In chapter 4 hooks brings up another example of how masc views on violence are directly shaped by patriarchy, similar to the story about the survey earlier in the book:

When researchers looking at date [SA] interviewed a range of college men and found that many of them saw nothing wrong with forcing a woman sexually, they were astounded. Their findings seemed to challenge the previously accepted notion that [SA] was aberrant male behavior. While it may be unlikely that any of the men in this study were or became [sexual assaulters], it was evident that given what they conceived as the appropriate circumstance, they could see themselves being sexually violent. Unconsciously they engage in patriarchal thinking, which condones [SA] even though they may never enact it.

This is a patriarchal truism that most people in our society want to deny. Whenever women thinkers, especially advocates of feminism, speak about the widespread problem of male violence, folks are eager to stand up and make the point that most men are not violent. They refuse to acknowledge that masses of boys and men have been programmed from birth on to believe that at some point they must be violent, whether psychologically or physically, to prove that they are men.

Very interesting to read in the wake of MeToo and #NotAllMen, even 20 years ago hooks was calling out the self-centered dorks who refuse to listen to women who’ve been saying with their whole chests how bad sexual violence is. This is another of those passages that I wish all mascs would read to understand that even if you have relatively good intentions, even if you are not an SA'er or a violent misogynist, you are not immune to patriarchal brainworms, especially if you haven’t made the effort to purge them.

Her description of how patriarchal mothers shape their sons’ worldviews is particularly fascinating to me:

Many teenage boys have violent contempt and rage for a patriarchal mom because they understand that in the world outside the home, sexism renders her powerless; he is pissed that she has power over him at home. He does not see her autocratic rule in the home as legitimate power. As a consequence, he may be enraged at his mom for using the tactics of psychological terrorism to whip him into shape and yet respond with admiration toward the male peer or authority figure who deploys similar tactics. In patriarchal culture boys learn early that the authority of the mother is limited, that her power comes solely from being a caretaker of patriarchy. When she colludes with adult male abuse of her son, she (or later a symbolic mother substitute) will be the target of his violence.

Reading this made something click in my head. Women married to patriarchal men and even single mothers who haven’t excised their patriarchal brainworms play a key role in perpetuating the culture, a point which hooks has made many times already but seeing a clear example laid out like this just makes it all make so much more sense. The anecdote about young boys watching Incredible Hulk and saying they’d “smash their mommies” is pretty horrifying and illustrates the point so distinctly. And she makes it clear that it's the responsibility of both men and women to work towards ending this cycle of “normal traumatization”.

In How Can I Get Through to You? Terrence Real includes a chapter titled “A Conspiracy of Silence,” in which he emphasizes that we are not allowed in this culture to speak the truth about what relationships with men are really like. This silence represents our collective cultural collusion with patriarchy. To be true to patriarchy we are all taught that we must keep men’s secrets. Real points out that the fundamental secret we share is that we will remain silent: “When girls are inducted into womanhood, what is it exactly that they have to say that must be silenced. What is the truth women carry that cannot be spoken. The answer is simple and chilling. Girls, women—and also young boys—all share this in common. None may speak the truth about men.”

bell hooks says gossip saves lives and she’s entirely correct

In self-help books galore the notion that women choose men who will treat them badly again and again is presented as truth. These books rarely talk about patriarchy or male domination. They rarely acknowledge that relationships are not static, that people change through time, that they adjust to circumstances. Men who may have seeds of negativity and domination within them along with positive traits may find the negative burgeoning at times of crisis in their lives.

This genuinely scares me as someone who is currently single but someday desires a loving long term relationship. The people in my life describe me as a kind, gentle and loving person, but what if all the negative emotions and pain I haven’t been socially allowed to process become too much to handle and I lash out? I want to say I don’t think I would ever become a patriarchal rage monster but the fact that it’s even possible is terrifying. When men bow at the altar of their patriarchal conditioning they’re not just hurting themselves emotionally but they’re putting everyone else around them (especially femmes) at risk, even if they have “good intentions”, whatever that means.

I connect so much with hooks’ description of how even if a man is able to fully embody the patriarchal dominator role, it’s not a satisfying existence, it’s actually soul-crushing and lonely as fuck. When I was a kid and I was trying (and failing hard) to be more macho and “dominating”, I figured out very quickly that it only made me miserable, compounded by the fact that I was a nerdy little sensitive boy who just couldn’t make that facade work. I’m extremely thankful I saw through the bullshit early on in my life because I can’t imagine putting on a front like that every single day of my life just to score social points from shitheads.

I’ll share my thoughts on chapter 5 later as I found that to be quite a heavy read that I want to process more first.