
Last fall, I gave a paper on precarious masculinity in the sitcom Ted Lasso at a conference on that show. The conference happened in Richmond, the London borough where the show’s fictional Greyhounds are based, and while at first I was excited about going to London for the weekend, I quickly wised up and opted for the Zoom option. I’m glad I did, because one of my fellow panelists, a PhD student from Louisiana State University named Madeline Grohowski, mentioned bell hooks’s The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love in her paper. The organizers had mentioned the possibility of publishing an anthology of essays from the conference, and as I listened to Madeline’s description of hooks’s ideas about men, I thought, I’ll have to get a copy of that. When it came time to turn my conference paper into a chapter in the conference proceedings, I got a copy of The Will to Change and started reading it. This book may have changed my life.
I was sold by the way hooks puts the behaviour of men, including men she loves and has loved, into a broader context: patriarchy. That’s especially true of her father, who was angry and held his family hostage “behind the walls of his patriarchal terrorism.” He learned that terrorism by being inculcated into patriarchy as a child, as many (most?) men do, as I did. That’s not surprising: the only emotion patriarchy allows men to express is rage. Any other feeling must be stifled, because if any other feeling is expressed, the man becomes unmanly–and that turns him into a target for the kind of abuse women and children receive. I was never convinced of the utility of the term “patriarchy” before reading this book–it always felt too monolithic and one-dimensional to me–but hooks’s discussion of it opened my eyes to its value. More importantly, I could suddenly understand my father’s behaviour in a different way. When hooks writes about her father, about the way she would wish him dead so that she could live, she could be describing my experience, too:
Lying in my girlhood bed waiting to hear the hard anger in his voice, the invasive sound of his commands, I used to think, “If only he would die, we could live.” Later as a grown woman waiting for the man in my life to come home, the man who was more often than not a caring partner but who sometimes erupted in violent fits of range, I used to think, “Maybe he will have an accident and die, maybe he will not come home, and I will be free and able to live.” Women and children all over the world want men to die so that they can live. This is the most painful truth of male domination, that men wield patriarchal power in daily life in ways that are awesomely life-threatening, that women and children cower in fear and various states of powerlessness, believing that the only way out of their suffering, their only hope is for men to die, for the patriarchal father not to come home. Women and female and male children, dominated by men, have wanted them dead because they believe that these men are not willing to change. They believe that men who are not dominators will not protect them. They believe that men are hopeless.
Being able to see my experience in those words, and being given an explanation for that experience–well, it is a gift, one for which I am grateful. I’m also grateful for the openness in hooks’s analysis of the way men act, for the, well, love she has for men despite their damage and the way they act. All of us, men and women, are patriarchy’s hostages. To dethrone that way of thinking about the world, which hooks defines as “the political system that shapes and informs male identity and sense of self from birth until death,” would set us all free. That is a truth that bros like Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate appear to be incapable of understanding.
Of course the book isn’t perfect. It’s 20 years old, and some of the sources feel outdated or perhaps too rooted in pop psychology, and when hooks describes men as people whose “human body . . . has a penis” she is ignoring the existence of trans folks. But nothing is perfect, and the value of her analysis makes up for those flaws.
I’ve read some of hooks’s essays before, but I’ve never read one of her books. She wrote many of them, and I’m looking forward to reading more.

