Reading: The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love (bell hooks) / Chapter 4: Stopping Male Violence To contextualise: How Nonviolence Protects the State related tags: #HNvPtS
The chapter opens like this, and I've got some questions:
Every day in America men are violent. Their violence is deemed “natural” by the psychology of patriarchy, which insists that there is a biological connection between having a penis and the will to do violence. This thinking continues to shape notions of manhood in our society despite the fact that it has been documented that cultures exist in the world where men are not violent in everyday life, where rape and murder are rare occurrences.
First, I think a more interesting perspective is discussing how this negligent view that a penis is equivalent to violence and danger was being weaponised against trans people with penises, especially trans women and trans femmes. This was not a new discussion in 2004. And it'd add more interest into the discussion patriarchy and enforced gender roles, even if we have to also talk about cis men.
Second, what are these cultures where we have documented evidence of men not being abusive in every day life? Why doesn't she cite examples? If they exist, tell me what they are. I would love to learn more, but I learn nothing because she just says they exist and expects the audience to believe it's true despite our experiences to contrary (and her supposed recognition of that). It's infuriating.
Every day in our nation there are men who turn away from violence. These men do not write books about how they manage to navigate the terrain of patriarchal masculinity without succumbing to the lure of violence. As women have gained the right to be patriarchal men in drag, women are engaging in acts of violence similar to those of their male counterparts. This serves to remind us that the will to use violence is really not linked to biology but to a set of expectations about the nature of power in a dominator culture.
Do we want to actually explore what the violence of women looks like and against whom it is primarily directed? Yes, it is directed at men (sometimes—often when there's a component of other marginalisation of that man at play, like race or disability). But it's primarily utilised against children. It's also utilised against other women (especially if they are additionally marginalised women), queer people, and disabled people. I think we need to accurately discuss women's violence without being flippant about it, and bell hooks just... doesn't do that here. (She could. If she wrote about it, she could easily REFER BACK TO HERSELF VIA A FOOTNOTE OR CITATION. Or a sentence! Weird that she doesn't.)
Also, another problem hooks has that she shares with Peter: NO ONE DEFINES WHAT THEY MEAN BY VIOLENCE. They just assume the audience shares that definition and understanding. Annoying.
They [the men she partnered with] could have protected themselves from this intimate repetition only by consciously working to be different, only by being disloyal to the dominator model.
Yeah, but it requires people to actually interrogate their values. And what do people not want to do when it comes time to looking at their status, position, or privileges?
A lot of this is focused as being individualistic, but that's a systemic issue.
When researchers looking at date rape 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 raping was aberrant male behavior. While it may be unlikely that any of the men in this study were or became rapists, it was evident that given what they conceived as the appropriate circumstance, they could see themselves being sexually violent.
Why... would you immediately go to defense for these guys who said they thought it's acceptable to force a woman to have sex? Is it “unlikely” that they're rapists or is it just more likely that their behaviours went unreported? Or that they haven't acted on them yet? Or that they were reported but had zero consequences of any kind? Weird to immediately think it's “unlikely” that someone who feels this way hasn't done it or wouldn't do it in the future.
Patriarchy breeds maternal sadism in women who embrace its logic. A great many women stand by and bear witness to their sons’ brutalization at the hands of fathers, boyfriends, brothers, and so on because they feel by doing so they show their allegiance to patriarchy. No wonder then that male rage is often most directed at women in intimate relationships.
... Okay, so let's think through this because it's weird. First, sure. There are women who engage in 'maternal sadism' and do embrace the logic of patriarchy, but let's check that second sentence: “a great many women... feel by doing so [that] they show their allegiance to patriarchy?” That's doing a lot of work.
Let's look at the more likely culprit here: Safety within patriarchy. That is a far more compelling reason than allegiance to patriarchy for “a great number of women.” It also doesn't undermine the discussion of women who do hold allegiance to patriarchy, but you have to start discussing what that actually means.
However, what's up with this victim-blaming of women for men's hatred? It's most directed at non-cis men because... they're complicit? Rather than the ones enacting the overwhelming majority of the rigid roles and abusive behaviours to boys? How does that make sense?
Contrary to popular myths, single mothers are often the most brutal when it comes to coercing their sons to conform to patriarchal standards. The single mom who insists that her boy child “be a man” is not antipatriarchal; she is enforcing patriarchal will. Researching boyhood, Olga Silverstein observed: “In single-parent families, it’s common to see boys who have become their mother’s ‘little man.’ Often these boys are very bossy children who patronize their mothers, who in fact do uncanny imitations of a certain kind of husband, being alternately possessive, protective, and seductive.”
The former doesn't indicate the latter. What Olga says doesn't necessarily mean that the mother is the one coercing their child to “be a man” and conform.
Also, citations needed for this assertion that single mothers are “most brutal.”
Whether in single-parent or two-parent households, boys who are allowed to assume the role of “mini patriarch” are often violent toward their mothers.
She blames single mothers for the behaviour of boys, so now why doesn't she explain where this SAME BEHAVIOUR comes from in dual-parent households?
Feminist idealization of mother-hood made it extremely difficult to call attention to maternal sadism, to the violence women enact with children, especially with boys.
WHOSE idealisation of motherhood? Also, feminist work has been the primary place I've seen people engage with the abusive behaviour of women toward their children, especially their sons.
Again, this is where HAVING EXAMPLES AND CITATIONS WOULD HELP. It's hard to believe her when my experiences in the same area are so incredibly different as to make her apparent reality feel like a strawman.
And yet we know that whether it is a consequence of power dynamics in dominator culture or simply a reflection of rage, women are shockingly violent toward children. This fact should lead everyone to question any theory of gender differences that suggests that women are less violent than men.
It'd also help if you defined 'violent' and then also engaged with the kinds of violence that are engaged in.
Not that this is inherently wrong, but it's shocking how lazy this book is in dealing with the topics when I have heard nothing but praise for it.
Maternal sadism must be studied, however, if we are to understand the roots of adult male violence toward women.
Maybe define maternal sadism so we know what that actually looks like so we can study it and come to an idea. But I think you'd find that this largely isn't sadism, and you'd have to do a lot more work to figure out if they're gaining pleasure from it or if that pleasure meets the understanding of “sadism.”
Usually this moment comes in adolescence, when many caring and affectionate mothers stop giving their sons emotional nurturance for fear it will emasculate them. Unable to cope with the loss of emotional connection, boys internalize the pain and mask it with indifference or rage.
Is this all that's happening in adolescence, though? Because boys are socialised by the other boys and men around them, and if they're getting made fun of for wanting their mother's love then... Huh.
Why does she spend so much time blaming women while feigning feminism? This genuinely doesn't feel like a feminist understanding of men; it doesn't feel feminist.
And you can critique womanhood and femininity while being feminist... but this ain't fucking it. It keeps coming back to the “boys lose the emotional labour of their mothers because their mothers pull back” but doesn't look at the world around the mother-son dynamic and how the teenage son himself might also be acting out in ways that make it hard for his mother to connect with him. She literally just said that teenage sons enact some forms of abuse against their mothers. Why is that being overlooked here?
If the first woman they passionately loved, the mother, was not true to her bond of love, then how can they trust that their partner will be true to love. Often in their adult relationships these men act out again and again to test their partner’s love.
Now explain to me patriarchal men who had wonderful and loving moms. Where do they come from? Where is their inability to care about their (women) partners stemming from?
Oh, so you mean that this half-ass analysis of shit that is full of half-truths doesn't really make total sense? Got it. (Sorry, but this book is atrocious.)
While the rejected adolescent boy imagines that he can no longer receive his mother’s love because he is not worthy, as a grown man he may act out in ways that are unworthy and yet demand of the woman in his life that she offer him unconditional love.
WHAT IS THIS LOGIC. I swear, this doesn't make any fucking sense and is so disconnected from the overwhelming majority of reality that it's unintentionally absurdist.
Feminist movement offered to men and women the information needed to challenge this psychic slaughter, but that challenge never became a widespread aspect of the struggle for gender equality. Women demanded of men that they give more emotionally, but most men really could not understand what was being asked of them.
Evidence. Citations. References. ANYTHING AT ALL, honestly. I don't buy this. Again, the feminist movement (and therefore, mostly women) are being blamed because men couldn't figure out what it meant to “give more emotionally.” Sorry, but that shit was spelled out repeatedly. And men are frequently given chances beyond what anyone else receive to learn.
You are not going to convince me that they “could not understand.” It's that they WOULD NOT understand, and I can look at the fucking manosphere for evidence of this. Every single one of those fucks literally says that they WILL NOT do anything that makes them look weak or vulnerable or... It's not that they don't understand what that looks like; it's that they REFUSE to do it.
Women seeking intimacy from men often find their expressions of longing belittled. Many men respond to females’ wanting emotional connection with emotional withdrawal and, in worst case scenarios, with abuse.
And this right here sounds LARGELY WILFULL. (Pair this with how this bit is talking about “describing a couple in family therapy” in another book, and it's like... So they went to family therapy and the man still couldn't stop belittling his wife wanting to, like, have a healthier relationship? That's intentional. That's not accidental. And sorry, but their trauma and abuse doesn't actually matter when they are intentionally hurting and abusing others.)
When the seemingly mild-mannered professor I lived with moved from emotional abuse to physical violence, I felt I should be understanding, forgiving. Like me, he had been raised in a dysfunctional family. However, even though he went to therapy, even though his physical violence stopped, he never really believed that he had done anything wrong. He harbored the notion, as many men who act violently do, that I was responsible for his bad behavior.
This just reminds me of trauma-bonding and how people utilise it as a means to abuse and manipulate others. You're giving him excuses because he had been vulnerable with you, and that vulnerability was a weapon that he utilised so that your defenses were down.
So really, she's not exploring any of the actual dynamics of “male violence.” She's just stating it's a thing, that it happens in some contexts (and she is sometimes correct about this), and then blaming feminism for not doing enough to help me understand what it looks like when they're emotional or vulnerable.
Women who stay in long-term relationships with men who are emotionally abusive or violent usually end up closing the door to their hearts. They stop working to create love. Often they stay in these relationships because a basic cynicism, rooted in their experience, affirms that most men are emotionally withholding, so they do not believe that they can find a loving relationship with any man.
Or they might be immigrants who are stuck with a citizen (or supported resident non-citizen), or financially dependent, or have no external support network, or they know their children will be taken from them, or...
It's not just fucking cynicism that “well, men suck, so I'll deal with this one.” That is lazy fucking analysis that ignores the realities of so many people who can't just... leave.
In the past ten years mass media have produced a number of movies aimed at boys that glorify war (Saving Private Ryan, Independence Day, Men in Black, Blackhawk Down, Pearl Harbor, to name a few) that once again make it appear heroic to die alone, away from home, fighting for a cause you may or may not understand.
Sorry, I just have to include this because it's really funny to see Men in Black tossed in here with the others.
Also, it's the only one that is interested in not fighting a war and stopping destruction (as opposed to the themes of the other four, which are more in line with fighting a just war)... even if it's basically alien-focused CIA nonsense. I don't like MiB, but I don't know that I'd say it glorifies war.
It's also funny in there because of:
These movies are part of patriarchal antifeminist backlash. They glorify the patriarchal masculinity that enlightened women and men critique.
... Men in Black is part of the patriarchal antifeminist backlash? Did I miss that messaging when I watched it as a kid? (I also can't really see it because they did do the Corporate Feminism trope with Laurel/Agent L, who didn't exist in the comics.)
Sorry, I can't take this seriously at all. I might be able to if it wasn't there, but I also don't feel like those films were part of any backlash because... we have analogues from prior decades for the same kinds of films. Maybe it's also because I live in a time of actual backlash to the smallest of diverse things in media.
I also think it's funny because, once again, PETER USES HER IN A BOOK ABOUT NONVIOLENCE PROTECTING THE STATE. And her whole schtick is about... fighting violence (whatever that is) and that it's all bad without actually engaging in how it's being used and by whom.
They serve as propaganda, recruiting the hearts and imaginations of boys. Like gangsta rap, they celebrate male violence on all fronts, including the domination of women.
Hmmm... Interesting. She's from Kentucky, why didn't she pick on... country music. Which also has a decent amount of violence against women in music by men. (And also doesn't tolerate women speaking out when they're right, like what happened to The Chicks in 2003.)
I wonder if she doesn't like The Chicks because they support “violence” (... I'm joking; I still like the song “Goodbye Earl.” And I do think many abusive men can and should be chopped up and served in your café if you're able.)
Poor and working-class male children and grown men often embody the worst strains of patriarchal masculinity, acting out violently because it is the easiest, cheapest way to declare one’s “manhood.”
HMMM... INTERESTING.
Sorry, I'm noticing some patterns here. And they keep going...
If you cannot prove that you are “much of a man” by becoming president, or becoming rich, or becoming a public leader, or becoming a boss, then violence is your ticket in to the patriarchal manhood contest, and your ability to do violence levels the playing field.
Soo... I don't know. I don't think poor and working class men are more violent than rich men. And that's what this insinuates.
... The end of the chapter flip-flops on the victim-blaming and says the feminist movement isn't responsible for men's intensified violence (true) but then throws in a quote from some guy about how women don't want sensitive men so they won't get support from feminist women...
... which counters what she says immediately.
I hate this book, and there are seven chapters left.