When a man loves

I always questioned men’s capacity to love and be loving long before I knew how to. Before I had the words and the language to articulate reasons for my skepticism and trepidation regarding this subject.

Reading Bell Hooks’ book New Visions: All About Love has helped me map out the words I need to express my concerns and shaped my thinking on the same. In it, she emphasizes, love and dominance cannot co-exist, suggesting love is not possible within patriarchal structures of domination.

I agree.

A passage in Corinthians reads:

Love is kind and patient, never jealous, boastful, proud, or rude.
Love isn’t selfish or quick tempered.
It doesn’t keep a record of wrongs that others do.

Love rejoices in the truth, but not in evil.

Love is always supportive, loyal, hopeful, and trusting.

Love never fails.

Drawing on the same principles, M. Scott Peck in his book The Road Less Traveled, defines love as “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing ones own or another’s spiritual growth.”

I learn from Bell Hooks that definitions are vital starting points for our imaginations. Definitions help us note the ways in which a matter at hand is lacking or not adequately addressed. With this in mind, understanding what constitutes love quickens us in noticing situations where love is lacking.

Knowing this, a question: can anyone raised to believe they must dominate their partner love or be loving? What are the implications of telling boys they will be the heads of their families, often meaning they will always have the final word and all decisions made rest squarely on their shoulders, their authority indisputable?

Psychoanalyst Carl Jung notes: where the will to power is paramount love will be lacking.

Patriarchy perverts love. Patriarchal masculinity, in the way it always equates manhood with dominance, stands in the way of love.

In a union where the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing another’s spiritual growth is required, men tend to choose to assert control and dominance, and act accordingly by doing whatever it takes to maintain that position. It may be through lying, aggression, emotionally withholding- you name it. In doing so, they forego chances of forming sustained loving attachments and instead advance dysfunctional, incoherent ones.

Hooks adds a profound declaration:

Many men, especially, often turn away from true love and choose relationships in which they can be emotionally withholding when they feel like it but receive love from someone else. Ultimately, they choose power over love.

Currently, in our patriarchal culture, it is commonly accepted that love can be present in a union where one individual dominates another.

In such relationships, women involved claim that love is present in their attachments, albeit with dispersed moments of dominance and control that can easily go overlooked. I suggest the opposite. That instead, their attachments are of an abusive, loveless nature tainted with care, affection and pleasure which in turn has them overlooking the ongoing dysfunction.

I turn to Hooks once more. And I paraphrase:

Sadomasochistic power dynamic can and usually does coexist with affection, care, tenderness and loyalty making it easier for power driven individuals to deny their agendas, even to themselves. Their positive actions give hope that love will prevail.

John Bradshaw in his work Creating Love: The next stage of growth suggests ending patriarchy is one step in the direction of love.

To reclaim love we must re-evaluate our approach to love and loving, this time with a focus on surrendering the will to dominate and instead work together toward the practice of a sustained love constituting care, affection, recognition, respect, responsibility, commitment, trust and open and honest communication. Understanding that love is a practice of learning and unlearning how we should love, what we should do and how we should act.

If left unexamined, love can become a condition in which inequality is lived, subtending and sustaining domination. In such unions, the oppressed continues to stay in an abusive union under the misguided belief that persevering through the acts of cruelty and lovelessness amounts to practicing love on their part.

I conclude by quoting John Stoltenberg, from his book the End of Manhood where he writes: Learning to live as a man of conscience means deciding that your loyalty to the people you love is always more important than whatever lingering loyalty you may sometimes feel to other men’s judgment on your manhood.