So much of the "soft patriarchy" comes down to "provide and protect", as if just those two aspects are wholesome as long as we strip it away from violence. But violence and domination are always going to sneak back in to further the mans provider and protector status. How can i provide if i dont dominate and exploit at work to further my career? How do i further my career without the wife in her proper place, supporting me? Protecting my family sounds nice, but what does that even mean? Because to so many people i grew up with, it meant protecting the virginity and purity of your beautiful daughters, and protecting the neighborhood from "undesirables"

So i recognize that a ton of my insecurities are rooted in my desire to "provide and protect" and my shame that i "fail" in this regard. My wife is a breadwinner and i have been only partially employed the past year. Our living situation isnt as good as it "should be" because i cant bring home enough money to buy a piece of land. What is "protecting" my wife but imagining potential harms and getting prepared to do unnecessary violence?

I dont think it is inherently bad to provide and protect, but also, to remember that these are universal desires that arent owned by men, and means more than "making a lot of money" and "being ready to shoot at intruders". I want to provide for my wife when she asks me for a cup of coffee. I want to protect my community from bigots and fascism. I want to spend more time with mutual aids that provide meals for the community. And just as a "man" wants to provide and protect, women do as well, but that is just called "motherly love". Living in an LGBTQ neighborhood, i cant ignore the painful past of lesbian women providing and protecting for their gay comrades suffering from AIDS.

"Rather than defining strength as “power over,” feminist masculinity defines strength as one’s capacity to be responsible for self and others."

This quote says all i need and more...before even being responsible for others, we have to be responsible for ourselves. This means self care, taking time for health, and continuing the practice of emotional openness. And being responsible for others - doing what i need for my family, and keeping an eye on my community to see how i can help address their needs. But again, this doesnt just mean "buy a gun and get ready to shoot at homophobes and ICE agents". Thats just reverting to a different version of patriarchal masculinity. A nicer version that stands for a good cause, sure, but the most important thing for me now is to focus on what i can do for myself, loving myself, and trying to give that love to the next layer outside of myself.

He argues that most men have such a limited sense of self that they are uncertain that they possess “selves we could want to relate to.” He contends, “We only seem to learn that the “self” is something we have to control tightly, since otherwise it might upset our plans.... We never really give ourselves much chance to know ourselves better or develop more contact with ourselves, since...all this threatens the ‘control’ we have been brought up to identify our masculinity with. We feel trapped, though we do not know how we are constantly remaking this trap for ourselves.”

This is something that struck home with me. I had this realization fairly recently in that I tend to just do whatever is required of me. Currently trying a lot of different things to see what I actually like doing. Seen myself as a cog in the machine whose only worth is what I can provice for others, not as a being myself.

Overall liked chapter 6. Hits some of the thoughts I've had of myself both as unemployed and employed. Chapter 7 is overall pretty cisnormative, but it is nice to have some kind of wholistic view of feminism here, given that I was brought up in a fairly separatist feminist culture. I tend to not trust separatist mens groups as far as I can throw them, it just fills me with self loathing.

Anyway, pretty short and very late post here as I've been very busy this week.

deleted by creator

Had fallen behind since I'm just really going through it right now. And I just finished reading chapter 6 and uff... does it strike a cord, especially since its exactly what I'm dealing with right now.

I've been working for close to 15 years of my life and it feels like the more time passes the more I fall into what Hooks is describing. Whenever I've tried building a relationship I just hit a wall because I've never really taken time to work on myself emotionally. Like its bad enough that in the past my managers have forced me to take time off because of how evident it was that I was burning out. But I'm glad to see Hooks putting what many of us who live in this patriarchal capitalist society go through. It was especially interesting see her point out how even those in a better position than most working class men are unable to fully escape the patriarchal aspects of society. It just makes me think of all of these people who speak about "work-life balance" in a superficial way that is more tailored by capitalists to produce more productive laborers rather than the emotional well being of their laborers.

Gonna add some more thoughts once I read chapter 7.

Removed by mod

Chapter 7 was real refreshing. This I think is what I was expecting early on but now I see the necessity in the previous chapters, even if I thought I was familiar with the subject. You need all that context to truly imagine the alternative. The notions of "selfhood" near the end resonated with me. Its something I've thought before but articulated far better then I could have. A more communal, more relational form of being.

I'm excited to keep reading, I feel I need to do more reflecting on this chapter, but it left me feeling optimistic. Mainly, as a father, knowing that deepening my understanding and being able to articulate and demonstrate an alternative will untimely benefit my kids.

Sliding my belated response in here.

Chapter 6 was, I thought just a really nice intersectional analysis of class, masculinity and work.

Chapter 7 was... idk this was a rough one for me personally if I'm being honest. I just have a really hard time with a positive male masculinity, and the various ways that it's pointed at here don't really resonate with me. I think I still have a lot of anger at men and masculinity that I haven't fully processed. Like I'm angry all this stuff was and continues to be forced on me.

I didn't think this chapter was bad necessarily, although cisheteronormative as others have pointed out. I think I'm just not really ready to contemplate a positive reclamation of masculinity where I'm at right now.

I haven't finished chapter 7 yet but chapter 6 really shows just how deeply connected the capitalist economic system is to patriarchy. It makes me want to finally read Caliban and the Witch. From the intro of that book we get the broad picture that primitive accumulation was in fact the process of domesticating women. Removing them from their established roles in society, stripping away their bodily autonomy, substituting men in their place as healers, and ultimately presenting them as the bargaining chip to the men enticed to work in the factories. It shows that this process is on going, not just one of the past. That capitalist markets perform this kind of violence against women even today.

I also want to read The Hidden Injuries of Class, which also touches on the way the capitalist system instills in men this idea of personal failure instead of systemic failure. Its author notes that:

This struggle was not only that they were trying to make sense of a complex society; a thread running through many of our interviews was the conviction that people should take responsibility for how they were situated in society. That is, being “lower down” did not just happen to them, it was internalized as who they were. These struggles with feelings of not being good enough, of personally failing, took place in an America that promised that everyone could rise if they made the most of themselves. “You are your own maker” the Renaissance philosopher Pico della Mirandola declared. Workers in Boston knew this was factually untrue but felt, personally, it was true.

Injuries to one’s sense of self-worth produce anger and resentment. For these White workers, Blacks who seemed to muscle in on their jobs and communities, and to capture the attention and sympathy of elites, were an obvious symbolic target, outside themselves, explaining why White workers were not doing well. But, in fact, matters were more complicated. Individual Black workers and neighbors were exempted from this scapegoating, and in the end people reverted to the fear that they had taken wrong turns or not made the most of themselves, rather than that their paths had been blocked by others. The very fact that some institutions were strong—stable corporations, strong unions—reinforced the sentiment that their fate at work was a matter of their own doing.

That anger and resentment is also talked about in Chapter 6, and we can see where the outlet for those feelings ultimately lay throughout the earlier chapters, it lay with the family. I think we can see the causality of these ideas today. Now more then ever young people are bombarded with this idea that you too can be independently wealthy. When the reality is, you'll just be caught up in this years rounds of layoffs and left economically abandoned. Your not going to make the next big app, you won't be the next Mr. Beast. There isn't enough attention for any of that. Young men are abandoning work and school altogether at very high rates.

There is a massive vacuum being created by young men seeking explanations for why their lives have turned out this way. Patriarchy stands ready to fill that void, as it always has.

I really enjoyed Chapter 6 which I think is most accessible and likely the most persuasive for anyone who isn't sold on this feminism concept. I think it is more and more relevant every year. Especially with these quotes early in the chapter:

One of the antifeminist patriarchal sentiments that has gained ground in recent years is the notion that masses of men used to be content to slave away at meaningless labor to fulfill their role as providers and that it is feminist insistence on gender equality in the workforce that has created male discontent.

Of course they 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.

I see this everywhere especially with younger men. We all know the truth is that people are miserable because the nature of work makes is that way. Its so helpful that she discusses this early with survey data to back up this fact. Moreover it shows that its the system that now requires everyone to work in the household. If people really cared about "traditional family values" they would raise wages so one person regardless of gender could support a single household.

My other favorite portions is talking about free time, family time and work. I love how this chapter lays out why those who could work from home 5 days a week are loving it and why "capitalists" want to remove it. With work from home and longer / any paternity leave shows that men who start off with their young children find it really rewarding and will insist on keeping it. Which bell hooks predicts decades before we started see it. See quote below (emphasis mine):

It has been through assuming the role of participatory loving parents that individual men have dared to challenge sexist assumptions and do work in the home that also invites them to learn relational skills. They document the rightness of feminist theory that argues that if men participated equally in child rearing, they would, like their female counterparts, learn how to care for the needs of others, including emotional needs.*

This is definitely happening which is terrifying for those in power. bell hooks further talks about how the lack of free time is dangerous because it promotes thinking, growth and challenging assumptions. I love this quote of hers:

Unemployment feels so emotionally threatening because it means that there would be time to fill, and most men in patriarchal culture do not want time on their hands

I think during COVID with fewer distractions and a forced time in a house was so threatening. You can see the splitting with people either unlearning some societal expectations about what is needed and what is not with those who were terrified about this change. Everyone saw how society operates is based on choices and people either were terrified by it or rejoiced in their new freedom. I can see this chapter being everyone's favorite here.

P.s. the only way I could participate in this book club is because I work from home. No way I could find the time to have these discussions in an office. Not because I wouldn't have the time but because this would not be "professional". Since "professional" means the only growth is for your "career" meaning doubling down on the patriarchy.

Chapter 7 is finally talking about alternative/feminist masculinity that we have wanting throughout the whole book. It lays out some of the assumptions about masculinity and feminism in the earlier chapters. I loved these early quotes:

Popular opinion about the impact of feminist movement on men’s lives is that feminism hurt men.

A man who is unabashedly and unequivocally committed to patriarchal masculinity will both fear and hate all that the culture deems feminine and womanly.

This really shows why an alternative masculinity is needed and why it is so difficult. The fear of the feminine and womanly is driving this cultural perspective that feminism hurts men when its not the case. Moreover, it shows the difficulty in finding an alternative masculinity since masculinity is defined as an opposite of women. If this is the case, it shows why men are terrified of feminism. If woman can be anything the opposite would mean that men can't be anything. This is not what feminism says but can be a persuasion argument if you like about it. bell hooks lays out why this myth started which I think is amazing because it destroys the argument that all feminist hate all men. Moreover, it shows how intersectionality can solve this problem which I think bell books lays out amazing in the following quote:

These were the women for whom feminist liberation was more about getting their piece of the power pie and less about freeing masses of women or less powerful men from sexist oppression. They were not mad at their powerful daddies and husbands who kept poor men exploited and oppressed; they were mad that they were not being giving equal access to power.

This is more and more obvious as time goes on. The rich white woman who take up the mantle of patriarchy to dominate those below them. They were always powerful and want to keep this power and don't want to rock the boat. They are happy being second best as long as there are people below them .

Her new model of positive masculinity is great if a little trans-exclusive which is understandable based on the age of the book. I think we can take the quote below and alter it as a new basis of alternative masculinity. See below (emphasis mine):

Rejecting this model for a feminist masculinity means that we must define maleness as a state of being rather than as performance. Male being, maleness, masculinity must stand for the essential core goodness of the self, of the human body that has a penis. Many of the critics who have written about masculinity suggest that we need to do away with the term, that we need “an end to manhood.” Yet such a stance furthers the notion that there is something inherently evil, bad, or unworthy about maleness.

If remove the portion about genitals this can serve as as good definition. This is similar to what feminism has done for women. There is no single definition of a woman because I woman can be anything she wants. If we move this men, it shows that there is no single definition of a man. A man can be anything because there is no single definition of a man. Any man's masculinity is inherent in their own maleness and nothing needs to be done to prove this. There has been criticism that positive masculinity is just niceness Masc coded but that might just be a good definition.

I would use this stolen and repackaged quote to define masculinity. "If you feel like a man, you're real like a man".

DISCUSSION TIME!!!!

@Farvana@lemmygrad.ml @FactuallyUnscrupulou@hexbear.net @Rojo27@hexbear.net @hotcouchguy@hexbear.net @ObamaSama@hexbear.net @frauddogg@hexbear.net @whatnots@hexbear.net @CaliforniaSpectre@hexbear.net @wtypstanaccount04@hexbear.net @Lalutacontinua@hexbear.net @NewOldGuard@hexbear.net @Volcatile@hexbear.net @Sulvor@hexbear.net @sewer_rat_420@hexbear.net @Frank@hexbear.net @Chronicon@hexbear.net @PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS@hexbear.net @Red_Sunshine_Over_Florida@hexbear.net @Melonius@hexbear.net @ped_xing@hexbear.net @comrade_pibb@hexbear.net @woodenghost@hexbear.net @peppersky@hexbear.net @Cowbee@hexbear.net @MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net @Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net @bdazman@hexbear.net @Real_User@hexbear.net @LGOrcStreetSamurai@hexbear.net @real@hexbear.net @OgdenTO@hexbear.net @RedWizard@hexbear.net @PaX@hexbear.net @DerRedMax@hexbear.net @PKMKII@hexbear.net @PurrLure@hexbear.net @TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net @courier8377@hexbear.net @Seasonal_Peace@hexbear.net @FumpyAer@hexbear.net @Latework@hexbear.net @BrezhnevsEyebrows@hexbear.net @Esoteir@hexbear.net @Cloudx189@hexbear.net @carpoftruth@hexbear.net @BobDole@hexbear.net @vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net @NotThatKindOfFedPosting@hexbear.net @HexaSnoot@hexbear.net @sempersigh@hexbear.net @Barabas@hexbear.net @dumples@midwest.social @PerryGirl@hexbear.net

The chapter on labor, and how patriarchy intertwines as an aspect of the superstructure in a way that culturally reinforces oppressive Capitalist systems was really cool to read, in a fucked up way. Patriarchy weaving itself into our understanding of how to be "model workers," regardless of morality or criminality as long as we chase the bag, makes a lot of sense in its staying power. It's like how, rather than critiquing Capitalism, Breaking Bad just makes it seem badass, ya know?

The practical chapter was nice to hear as well, because nothing is more important for theory than putting it to practice. By understanding how and why the patriarchy works, we can work against it and help raise gentler generations unshackled from it. It's the most hopeful chapter so far.

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.

I feel bad about not being here for a while, especially since I hosted the last group. I promise I'll be back, it's just been extraordinarily busy during the holiday season. I'm probably going to do a more in-depth post covering the last several chapters when I get the chance. This has shades of my procrastination in college for sure.

Removed by mod