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