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.

  • AcidSmiley [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    5·
    2 days ago

    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.

    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.

    • dumples@midwest.socialEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      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.