I'm Reading bell hooks

[BEER]

Very specifically, I'm reading "The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love"

Now, for those of you who are unaware, my "Resident Feminist" tag is a joke.

Also for those of you who are unaware, bell hooks (intentionally lower cased first letters) is a deeply lauded feminist author.

In my many debates with feminists, her name came up constantly. Never with any excerpts or context. Just "educate yourself, read bell hooks" type shit. So, I decided to go for it. I spitefully purchased the aforementioned book, ready to be heavily critical of a woman telling me what it's like to be a man.

I am now convinced that every feminist who has ever told me to read bell hooks has never done so.

"The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love" is (to this point, I'm about halfway through it) largely a critique on the contemporary feminist movement's inability to actually apply their rhetoric in a way that helps men and male issues. The book is heavily in line with my views on contemporary feminism as a whole, and I was engrossed. It tackles the issue of male expectations in society as perpetrated through the media, single-mother households, and abusive childhoods.

I have never been shy about seeking out opposing viewpoints, but I was incredibly surprised to find one of those ventures that actually aligned with my views.

While she takes a shot at Christina Hoff Sommers' "The War On Boys", hooks herself is very critical of the feminist movement's inaction, and openly suggests that men may be better off forming their own movement to support male issues; Feminism has screeched for years about how it helps men, but hooks outlines how it fails them.

I implore anyone interested in critical feminist theory (whether for spiteful purposes, such as myself, or otherwise) to give this a read. Just short of 200 pages, and written without the pretentiousness we've grown to expect from "pop intellectuals", it's an interesting, intriguing perspective.

(Posted in War Room because of the polarized nature of feminism)

 

[Squall Leonhart]

I've argued and destroyed feminists in and out of the office (not recommended) with anthropology and evolutionary theory, as well as the human social dynamics and "red pill" knowledge.

They cry about the gender pay disparity ------- I eviscerate them with money is a way for males to attract females as a resource to prove that they can procure things for their mates, and if you eliminate the provider role, you give women less criteria to judge men based on (looks, personality are left and many men don't have these to rely on, so we aren't going to give up this advantage easily)

They cry about domestic violence or the depiction of women in movies (see for example the billboard for X-men Apocalypse showing Apocalypse choking a female character) -------I explain that if you cry domestic violence, you are giving women special treatment compared to men, so if you want equality then both sexes can get beat on by a fictional super villain

And don't even get me started on how the gender pay disparity only exists because of the jobs men and women tend to take...men are more often engineers, men more often risk their lives at work and get paid for these dangerous jobs, etc.

 

[BEER]

Is that an automated reply whenever the word "feminism" shows up on Sherdog?

 

[Quipling]

To be fair, hooks has like 20 books. To be more critical, she touches a little bit on those themes even in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, though, iirc, more as a critique of 2d wave than of modern feminism.

I've argued and destroyed feminists in and out of the office (not recommended) with anthropology and evolutionary theory, as well as the human social dynamics and "red pill" knowledge.

They cry about the gender pay disparity ------- I eviscerate them with money is a way for males to attract females as a resource to prove that they can procure things for their mates, and if you eliminate the provider role, you give women less criteria to judge men based on (looks, personality are left and many men don't have these to rely on, so we aren't going to give up this advantage easily)

They cry about domestic violence or the depiction of women in movies (see for example the billboard for X-men Apocalypse showing Apocalypse choking a female character) -------I explain that if you cry domestic violence, you are giving women special treatment compared to men, so if you want equality then both sexes can get beat on by a fictional super villain

And don't even get me started on how the gender pay disparity only exists because of the jobs men and women tend to take...men are more often engineers, men more often risk their lives at work and get paid for these dangerous jobs, etc.

Based on how unrelated this is to the op, I doubt you eviscerate much more than your own dick from furiously jerking yourself off.

 

[BEER]

To be fair, hooks has like 20 books. To be more critical, she touches a little bit on those themes even in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, though, iirc, more as a critique of 2d wave than of modern feminism.

I'm certainly interested in picking up more of her work at this point. I picked this book specifically to have to a laugh, but now I'm interested in delving into more of her work, both critical and otherwise

Based on how unrelated this is to the op, I doubt you eviscerate much more than your own dick from furiously jerking yourself off.

lol'd

 

[m52nickerson]

Is that an automated reply whenever the word "feminism" shows up on Sherdog?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Based on how unrelated this is to the op, I doubt you eviscerate much more than your own dick from furiously jerking yourself off.

Do not recommend this btw. Trust me, a friend told me about it...

 

[BEER]

Would a mod mind moving this over to Mayberry? I think the War Room may have been a poor choice to generate discussion.

 

[Fawlty]

I've stayed out of the feminism stuff for the most part, but it's interesting to hear this perspective coming from you. From what I have seen, the scholarship is more impressive than people who dislike feminists presume it is.

 

[Quipling]

Would a mod mind moving this over to Mayberry? I think the War Room may have been a poor choice to generate discussion.

Tbh, you'll probably catch more discussion with a title like "After reading bell hooks I'm a real feminist now.". I had a scotus thread that blew up from 4 posts to 105 after I made the title a little more baity.

 

[BEER]

I've stayed out of the feminism stuff for the most part, but it's interesting to hear this perspective coming from you. From what I have seen, the scholarship is more impressive than people who dislike feminists presume it is.

I believe most people who oppose feminism do so due to the action and rhetoric of your general "angry man-hating feminist" stereotype. Which isn't without merit, to be fair. Those feminists are the ones who get shit done. They're responsible for demanding and championing the incredibly flawed guilty-until-proven-innocent "Yes Means Yes" law in California. They're responsible for the Duluth Model. They're responsible for the Miss Magazine survey that lead to the "1/4 of women will be raped" myth.

And they're responsible for the general disinterest in the label of "feminist".

One of my largest gripes has always been a selfish one, however. Feminists have been screaming about how feminism helps men and boys by dismantling the patriarchy, while taking no action to correct the wrong hand that society often deals to boys and young men.

A few excerpts from the book:

"It has been hard for any male thinkers, about the emotional lives of boys, to see feminism as a helpful theory because, to a grave extent, antimale sentiment among some feminists have lead the movement as a whole to focus very little attention on the development of boys."

"One of the tremendous failings of feminist theory and practice has been the lack of a concentrated study of boyhood, one that offers guidelines and strategies for alternative masculinity and ways of thinking about maleness. Indeed, the feminist rhetoric that insisted on identifying males as the enemy often closed down the space where boys could be considered, where they could be deemed as worthy of rescue from patriarchal exploitation and oppression, as were their female counterparts."

"Feminist theory has offered us brilliant critiques of patriarchy, but very few insightful ideas about alternative masculinity, especially in relation to boys."

"While feminism may ignore boys and young males, capitalist patriarchal men do not." (I took this to mean that while feminism offers no alternative, society's architects continue to exploit the shortcomings of young men in America.)

 

[BEER]

I should also make a note that variations of the word "patriarchy" are used almost obsessively in the book.

But unlike shrieking tumblrinas, hooks makes it clear that "patriarchy" is a symptom of social evolution that is passed down from generation to generation. She never states nor implies that men are the enemy, but just as chained to the system as women. There are tangents throughout the book that explain how women are often implicit in patriarchal structures, not enslaved in them.

I've never delved very deep into feminist theory, but I apparently picked an agreeable and thought provoking place to start.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not sure how much I want feminists paying attention to the development of boys.

 

[BEER]

Not sure how much I want feminists paying attention to the development of boys.

The book, so far, is criticizing the movement for preaching equality but only focusing on one side of the aisle.

As I mentioned in the OP, it even suggests that men may need their own movement. But since then, that movement has been created and sabotaged by feminists every step of the way.

I wonder if hooks has commented on that in any more recent works.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The book, so far, is criticizing the movement for preaching equality but only focusing on one side of the aisle.

As I mentioned in the OP, it even suggests that men may need their own movement. But since then, that movement has been created and sabotaged by feminists every step of the way.

I wonder if hooks has commented on that in any more recent works.

"Paying attention" sounds to me like greater involvement, which is the opposite of men/boys having their own movement.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

@BEER, @Devout Pessimist is Sherdog's resident anti-feminist specialist, he should be willing to discuss this with you.
I'm not well versed in the area to discuss it beyond arguing against the extremes.

 

[BEER]

"Paying attention" sounds to me like greater involvement, which is the opposite of men/boys having their own movement.

I would have zero issue with feminists focusing solely on women's issues if that's what they claimed. And some certain sects certainly do make that claim.

The issue is when men congregate to discuss male issues, feminists disrupt the conversation and claim that feminism helps men too, and thus men need no such movements.

bell hooks is a feminist with an interest in the movement as an egalitarian one, and thus her criticism of inaction is perfectly valid.

 

[BEER]

@BEER, @Devout Pessimist is Sherdog's resident anti-feminist specialist, he should be willing to discuss this with you.
I'm not well versed in the area to discuss it beyond arguing against the extremes.

I used to run an anti-feminist Tumblr with over 50k followers. I'm aware of the flaws, nuance and all. I had just been too stubborn to ever take in any actual feminist theory.

I genuinely bought this book as a means of educating myself to the thoughts of "the enemy". "The enemy" doesn't seem to be versed in their own curriculum.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I would have zero issue with feminists focusing solely on women's issues if that's what they claimed. And some certain sects certainly do make that claim.

The issue is when men congregate to discuss male issues, feminists disrupt the conversation and claim that feminism helps men too, and thus men need no such movements.

bell hooks is a feminist with an interest in the movement as an egalitarian one, and thus her criticism of inaction is perfectly valid.

Yeah, feminists should be ignored when it comes to male development.

 

[BEER]

Yeah, feminists should be ignored when it comes to male development.

Bad ideas should be ignored when it comes to male development. I won't ignore good ideas simply because it was a feminist who had the idea.