I really appreciate hooks’ discussion of how religion rigidly enforces gender roles, specifically Christian churches in the west. I was deeply involved in an evangelical church as a teenager and oh my god the number of times I heard “men are the head of the family, god wants you women to submit to your husbands” told to a bunch of teenagers (and adults!) still creeps me the fuck out to this day. There’s a lot of discussion in leftist spaces about if and how the existing structures of churches and religious organizations can be used to further our cause but hooks explains the reality well: religious institutions are inherently conservative and have a long history of collaborating with the ruling class.

The next section on the direct impact of this patriarchal thinking on her home life was horrifying to read

CW: child abuse

Her father beating up his little girl with a plank of wood because she liked playing with marbles and was better at the game than his young boy while the rest of her family just watched in horror is so heartbreaking. I had to put the book down for a little bit after reading that. THIS is the retvrn to trvdition that chuds want. This is what violent enforcement of patriarchy means.

I read these two chapters with the recent discussions about Hexbear’s misogyny and general bigotry problems in the back of my mind, particularly the incel apologia that rears its head here whenever that subject gets brought up. hooks dismantles these mindsets very effectively in chapter 2. While she is extensively criticizing feminist “separatist” ideology, she also makes it clear where the lines are drawn (emphasis mine):

Separatist ideology encourages women to ignore the negative impact of sexism on male personhood. It stresses polarization between the sexes. According to Joy Justice, separatists believe that there are “two basic perspectives” on the issue of naming the victims of sexism: “There is the perspective that men oppress women. And there is the perspective that people are people, and we are all hurt by rigid sex roles.”…Both perspectives accurately describe our predicament. Men do oppress women. People are hurt by rigid sexist role patterns. These two realities coexist. Male oppression of women cannot be excused by the recognition that there are ways men are hurt by rigid sexist roles. Feminist activists should acknowledge that hurt, and work to change it—it exists. It does not erase or lessen male responsibility for supporting and perpetuating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than the serious psychological stress and emotional pain caused by male conformity to rigid sexist role patterns.

The incel epidemic spurred on by alienation and rigid societal enforcement of patriarchal gender roles is a serious problem that we should want to do something about. The answer is NOT to carve out space for these violent misogynists in otherwise safe spaces for femmes and minority groups hurt by capitalist patriarchy. Patriarchal men beat their little girls with boards for being better at a marbles game than their little boys. hooks points out that yes, her story is from the 50s, and the general tide is shifting in that regard, but patriarchy is enforced by violence. Why the fuck would you give these violent men the space and opportunity to continue inflicting that on women? Men have to be willing to do the work themselves before we get anywhere near what incel apologists on this very site are advocating for.

If there’s one single section of this book I want every masc user on this site to read, it’s this one (emphasis mine):

Indeed, radical feminist critique of patriarchy has practically been silenced in our culture. It has become a subcultural discourse available only to well educated elites. Even in those circles, using the word “patriarchy” is regarded as passé. Often in my lectures when I use the phrase “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh. No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny. The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism. It functions as a disclaimer, discounting the significance of what is being named. It suggests that the words themselves are problematic and not the system they describe. I interpret this laughter as the audience’s way of showing discomfort with being asked to ally themselves with an antipatriarchal disobedient critique. This laughter reminds me that if I dare to challenge patriarchy openly, I risk not being taken seriously.

Citizens in this nation fear challenging patriarchy even as they lack overt awareness that they are fearful, so deeply embedded in our collective unconscious are the rules of patriarchy. I often tell audiences that if we were to go door-to-door asking if we should end male violence against women, most people would give their unequivocal support. Then if you told them we can only stop male violence against women by ending male domination, by eradicating patriarchy, they would begin to hesitate, to change their position. Despite the many gains of the contemporary feminist movement—greater equality for women in the workforce, more tolerance for the relinquishing of rigid gender roles—patriarchy as a system remains intact, and many people continue to believe that it is needed if humans are to survive as a species.

…To end patriarchy we must challenge both its psychological and its concrete manifestations in daily life. There are folks who are able to critique patriarchy but unable to act in an antipatriarchal manner.

When users on this site (specifically, cishet white masc users) talk over or flat out ignore what minority users are telling them about the bigotry problem on HB, they are the same people who laughed at bell hooks when she dared to name the problem of patriarchy to an audience. They are the same people who agree that male violence against women needs to end, but if that means they lose some benefits of patriarchy, suddenly they’re not on board, and the people criticizing their shitty behavior are having “outbursts”, said in the most condescending tone imaginable. You can claim to be a leftist, you can claim to be a socialist or an anarchist or a communist, but personally identifying with leftism, by itself, is not anywhere near enough. Your “””right””” to make silly little “ironic” misogyny/racism/chauvinism posts on an internet forum is not more important than the safety and liberation of the people you call your comrades. And particularly, if you try to use the above sections from hooks or any other part of her work as a cudgel to make femmes be kind and welcoming to men who want to hurt them, you are a reactionary and you can fuck all the way off out of this space until you start giving a shit about excising your brainworms.

I’m deeply depressed by the fact that the people who need to read this book the most, won’t. I appreciate every one of my Hexbear comrades, and those from the wider fediverse (hi yall!), who are taking the time to engage with this material and educate themselves. This is my first time reading this book as well so we’re all on a learning journey together. From the bottom of my hear, thank you all for your insights and discussions you’re bringing to the table. This is how we learn and grow.

One last piece I wanna highlight from chapter 3:

Every day across this country boys consume mass media images that send them one message about how to deal with emotions, and that message is “Act out.” Usually acting out means aggression directed outward. Kicking, screaming, and hitting get attention. Since patriarchal parenting does not teach boys to express their feelings in words, either boys act out or they implode. Very few boys are taught to express with words what they feel, when they feel it. And even when boys are able to express feelings in early childhood, they learn as they grow up that they are not supposed to feel and they shut down.

…Time and time again we hear on our national news about the seemingly kind, quiet young male whose violent underpinnings are suddenly revealed. Boys are encouraged by patriarchal thinking to claim rage as the easiest path to manliness. It should come as no surprise, then, that beneath the surface there is a seething anger in boys, a rage waiting for the moment to be heard.

I feel like I’m in a weird position because I totally relate to this, being seen by others irl as a mild-mannered, “nice” guy while holding a deep sadness and often anger inside, but I’m also too anxious and too hyperaware of other peoples’ perceptions of me to really “act out” in the way she describes here, which is good, thank fuck I’m not inclined to violence and rageful outbursts and never have been. But all these feelings and insecurities I hold don’t really have an outlet at the moment, they just fester. I can identify this rage within myself and the way it presents through self-medication, distracting myself with media, and keeping my true feelings largely contained to when I’m alone and therefore feel free to express them to just myself. If push came to shove I would “implode” as she describes long before I turned that anger and despair on another person. I’ve been considering going back to therapy and this is really helping push me in that direction, I want to be emotionally well not just for myself but for my loved ones, my neighbors, my comrades.

We’re still early in the book but I’m really eager to see hooks provide an alternate path to healthy masculinity, which I assume will come later. Also, how do you reach people who have little conception of patriarchy or feminism and convince them that yes actually it’s good for everyone when you educate yourself and desire to change for the better? Very interested to hear everyone’s thoughts this week!