Chapter 7 is finally talking about alternative/feminist masculinity that we have wanting throughout the whole book. It lays out some of the assumptions about masculinity and feminism in the earlier chapters. I loved these early quotes:

Popular opinion about the impact of feminist movement on men’s lives is that feminism hurt men.

A man who is unabashedly and unequivocally committed to patriarchal masculinity will both fear and hate all that the culture deems feminine and womanly.

This really shows why an alternative masculinity is needed and why it is so difficult. The fear of the feminine and womanly is driving this cultural perspective that feminism hurts men when its not the case. Moreover, it shows the difficulty in finding an alternative masculinity since masculinity is defined as an opposite of women. If this is the case, it shows why men are terrified of feminism. If woman can be anything the opposite would mean that men can’t be anything. This is not what feminism says but can be a persuasion argument if you like about it. bell hooks lays out why this myth started which I think is amazing because it destroys the argument that all feminist hate all men. Moreover, it shows how intersectionality can solve this problem which I think bell books lays out amazing in the following quote:

These were the women for whom feminist liberation was more about getting their piece of the power pie and less about freeing masses of women or less powerful men from sexist oppression. They were not mad at their powerful daddies and husbands who kept poor men exploited and oppressed; they were mad that they were not being giving equal access to power.

This is more and more obvious as time goes on. The rich white woman who take up the mantle of patriarchy to dominate those below them. They were always powerful and want to keep this power and don’t want to rock the boat. They are happy being second best as long as there are people below them .

Her new model of positive masculinity is great if a little trans-exclusive which is understandable based on the age of the book. I think we can take the quote below and alter it as a new basis of alternative masculinity. See below (emphasis mine):

Rejecting this model for a feminist masculinity means that we must define maleness as a state of being rather than as performance. Male being, maleness, masculinity must stand for the essential core goodness of the self, of the human body that has a penis. Many of the critics who have written about masculinity suggest that we need to do away with the term, that we need “an end to manhood.” Yet such a stance furthers the notion that there is something inherently evil, bad, or unworthy about maleness.

If remove the portion about genitals this can serve as as good definition. This is similar to what feminism has done for women. There is no single definition of a woman because I woman can be anything she wants. If we move this men, it shows that there is no single definition of a man. A man can be anything because there is no single definition of a man. Any man’s masculinity is inherent in their own maleness and nothing needs to be done to prove this. There has been criticism that positive masculinity is just niceness Masc coded but that might just be a good definition.

I would use this stolen and repackaged quote to define masculinity. “If you feel like a man, you’re real like a man”.