Will the Harvey Weinstein Scandal Change America?

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Will the Harvey Weinstein Scandal Change America?"

The New Yorker Radio Hour
Host: David Remnick
Guests: Ronan Farrow, Alexandra Schwartz, bell hooks (plus a segment with Bruce Springsteen)
Air Date: November 17, 2017

---

Overview

This episode of The New Yorker Radio Hour examines the repercussions of the Harvey Weinstein scandal and explores whether the resulting wave of exposure and accountability for sexual harassment and assault represents a turning point in American culture. David Remnick speaks with Ronan Farrow, investigative journalist whose reporting was central to exposing Weinstein, Alexandra Schwartz, New Yorker staff writer, and later with feminist thinker bell hooks. The discussion navigates the complexities survivors face, the societal dynamics at play, the roots of patriarchy, and the profound reckoning now occurring in public and private spheres.

---

1. The Challenge of Coming Forward (00:29–04:50)

Key Discussion Points

• Why Survivors Stay Silent:

  • Farrow explains the array of factors—trauma, career fears, powerful PR and legal apparatuses—that dissuade survivors from coming forward.
  • Many, like actress Annabella Sciorra, even initially deny their experiences out of fear of being "branded" for life (03:46).

• "First paragraph in your obituary":

  • Remnick notes how revelations of sexual assault often define women forever.
  • Noteworthy quote:

    "If you come forward with this kind of an allegation, you are always a survivor with a capital S."
    — Ronan Farrow (04:07)

• Tactics of Intimidation:

  • Farrow details how Weinstein's network "went after" women and journalists, including deploying private investigators and intimidation.

Notable Quote

• On the PR machine's impact:

  "As we've chronicled in our reporting, also a really unthinkable before, I reported on this machine of private investigators and people operating undercover going after these women."
  — Ronan Farrow (04:16)

---

2. Cultural Impact and the Role of Fame (04:50–08:24)

Key Discussion Points

• Breaking the Story in Hollywood:

  • Schwartz reflects on why it's significant that a group of famous women came forward—unlike Anita Hill, these are women known prior to their accusations, making their stories more relatable to the public.

• Fame as a Double-Edged Sword:

  • Farrow notes fame can make stories both more credible and, paradoxically, less relatable.

  "Even I would say within that Hollywood community... I looked at these other women, Gwyneth Paltrow, Mira Sorvino, and I thought, they're so beautiful... It could have never happened to them."
  — Ronan Farrow (06:39)

• Universality of the Problem:

  • Schwartz emphasizes the #MeToo movement illustrates that harassment transcends industry, status, and renown—a problem that "goes so far beyond Hollywood" (07:14).

---

3. "Believe Women" & Shifting Public Reaction (07:53–11:29)

Key Discussion Points

• “Believe Women”:

  • Schwartz unpacks the phrase, clarifying it corrects for default skepticism toward women rather than demanding blind faith (07:59).

• Sense of Betrayal by Public Figures:

  • Remnick and Schwartz discuss the Louis C.K. revelations; Schwartz admits her rage and betrayal stem from C.K.'s previous self-awareness about gendered harm.

  "I felt betrayed. I think other people have felt this way by Louis, specifically... he's able to dissect this whole poison power system from a man's perspective. That is very impressive and rare. And so it feels, you know, it feels so disappointing."
  — Alexandra Schwartz (08:39)

• Men's Self-Reflection:

  • Remnick observes men now re-examine their past behavior, even if innocent, while Schwartz describes the “amazement and shock” within women's circles at men’s sudden reckoning.

  "It cannot just be on women to police this whole situation or to ask what is appropriate, what is inappropriate. It has to be everyone. And so I think just the sense that we may not be in it alone is profound."
  — Alexandra Schwartz (11:14)

---

4. Politics and Public Accountability (11:29–13:12)

Key Discussion Points

• Donald Trump and Roy Moore:

  • Farrow remarks on the frustration women feel seeing allegations against powerful men like Trump have little effect.

  "There is a feeling of being fed up, you know, to be a woman in America right now... is an extraordinarily frustrating experience seeing those allegations swirl around and have so little effect."
  — Ronan Farrow (11:50)

• The Weight of Official Statements:

  • Remnick and Schwartz note that even small increments—like Jeff Sessions’ tepid belief in accusers—are new in American politics.

  "It is a relief that we can... establish a fact and have the fact be seen as what a fact is—a neutral truth."
  — Alexandra Schwartz (12:56)

---

5. The Problem of Public Apologies (13:12–15:44)

Key Discussion Points

• Acknowledgment vs. Apology:

  • Schwartz says true progress begins with acknowledgment; however, Louis C.K., for instance, "acknowledged, but did not apologize" (13:51).

  • Farrow notes C.K.'s focus on asking for permission misses the point; "did he get that permission?" (14:13)

• Flawed Blanket Apologies:

  • Schwartz describes why collective/public apologies feel insufficient or insincere, lacking individual atonement.

  "That kind of blanket apology, whether it comes from a famous figure who has now been outed or whether it comes from a person writing on social media in response to the MeToo campaign... apology and redress doesn't really work that way."
  — Alexandra Schwartz (15:34)

---

6. On Punishment, Return, and Cultural Change (15:44–18:02)

Key Discussion Points

• Degrees of Misconduct:

  • Schwartz insists some form of rehabilitation and return may be possible for those with lesser offenses—cultural exile shouldn't be permanent for all.

  "We need to live in a society in which you are exiled for life. And that is that no matter what the level of your offense, there is a big range."
  — Alexandra Schwartz (16:24)

• Hope for the Future:

  • Schwartz yearns for a culture where women can “speak up and say it” and genuinely be heard and believed. (17:30)

---

7. The Broader Roots: bell hooks on Patriarchy and Masculinity (18:11–27:28)

Key Discussion Points

• Patriarchy as the Systemic Problem:

  • hooks criticizes media for focusing on individual pathology over systemic patriarchy.

  "We want to act like this is individual male psychopathology and not like this is normal."
  — bell hooks (20:22)

• How Boys Are Raised:

  • hooks discusses being socialized to equate masculinity with violence, and how women also uphold patriarchal norms.

  • Personal anecdote on her father:

    "He was all of these things that we associate with masculinity... and really had a lot of disdain for my brother because... he was a much softer, warmer human being."
    — bell hooks (21:23)

• Childhood Trauma and Abuse:

  • hooks suggests many abusive men may have been victims themselves, but society hesitates to confront the pervasiveness of abuse against boys (22:23).

• The Challenge of Change:

  • hooks argues real change comes from transforming family dynamics and emotional education, not just political edicts.

  "Parenting is political....this has to begin on the level of family."
  — bell hooks (25:02)

• Men’s Emotional Development:

  • hooks advocates for therapy and emotional intelligence training for men, linking emotional stuntedness to habitual violence.

  "These men that we're talking about are not men who feel."
  — bell hooks (26:22)

• On Bill Cosby and Louis C.K.:

  • Quick take: “Hated Cosby from jump. He was too good to be true.” (27:21)

---

8. Bonus Segment: Bruce Springsteen on Patriarchy and the Family (28:21–29:43)

Notable Moment

• Springsteen reads from Born to Run about his fraught relationship with his father, a symbol of "the old school" patriarch:

  "He loved me, but he couldn't stand me. He felt we competed for my mother's affections...Beyond his rage, he harbored a gentleness, a timidity, shyness and a dreamy insecurity. These are all the things that I wore on the outside. And reflections of these qualities in his boy repelled him..."
  — Bruce Springsteen (28:21)

  This reading serves as a personal parallel to hooks’ point about intergenerational masculinity and how softness in men is punished.

---

Selected Notable Quotes with Timestamps

1. "If you come forward with this kind of an allegation, you are always a survivor with a capital S."
   — Ronan Farrow (04:09)
2. "The amazement and shock is the idea that men are thinking about this. This has not been something that men have had to think about as a group..."
   — Alexandra Schwartz (10:41)
3. "We want to act like this is individual male psychopathology and not like this is normal."
   — bell hooks (20:22)
4. "Parenting is political...this has to begin on the level of family."
   — bell hooks (25:02)
5. "He loved me, but he couldn't stand me... He was strong, physically formidable. Toward the end of his life, he fought back from death many times... These are all the things that I wore on the outside. And reflections of these qualities in his boy repelled him..."
   — Bruce Springsteen (28:21)

---

Conclusions & Tone

• Tone: Frank, thoughtful, sometimes raw; cycles between outrage, reflection, and cautious hope.
• Key Insights:
  • The Weinstein scandal is a catalyst, not a conclusion, in America’s overdue reckoning with harassment and patriarchy.
  • Fame helped the story break but also exposes how universal these issues are.
  • Systemic change requires reckoning not just with individual perpetrators, but with cultural norms, family dynamics, and what is expected of men and women.

---

This episode delivers a nuanced portrait of a historic cultural moment and provides a broad, systemic perspective on how change might come—not just in the workplace or through laws, but in how we raise and relate to each other.

Transcript

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Floor 38.

[David Remnick]

They didn't break that, but they have.

[Bell Hooks]

Pretty good access to those people.

[Ronan Farrow]

Her image subconsciously mocks that lineage.

[David Remnick]

So that's happened. Okay.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

It seems like an incredible story here on many fronts.

[Narrator/Producer]

From one World Trade center in Manhattan, this is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker.

[David Remnick]

Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. We're experiencing right now something that's got to be almost unprecedented in American society across the nation, in entertainment, in media, broadcasting, technology, the workplace, everywhere, even in politics. More and more every day, we see powerful men being accused of sexual harassment and worse, and they're being held to account for it. Women are speaking up and they're being believed. In this wave of allegations, some of the most shocking charges were published here at the New Yorker about a group of women who talked about their experiences at the hands of the film producer Harvey Weinstein. Reporting in the magazine recounts behavior by Weinstein that went far beyond harassment. It went straight to outright rape. Those were the accusations, and they're denied by Harvey Weinstein. Ronan Farrow wrote those extraordinary pieces for the New Yorker. And he joined me in the studio along with Alexandra Schwartz, who's been covering the effects of the Weinstein scandal in our society. Ronan, I'd like to start with you. And the issue I'd like to begin with is why, in your experience, women don't bring these charges forward to and are silent for so long. And then what happened? Why has this moment happened when the New York Times and the New Yorker were finally able to get women to talk about, in this instance, Harvey Weinstein? And then obviously this has had a kind of gate opening effect.

[Ronan Farrow]

This has been a major theme in our reporting, Right. Trying to convey the nuances of why it is so hard for sexual assault survivors to speak. And particularly in cases like this where they're going up against this massive PR apparatus. And it's a panoply of reasons, personal reasons, to do with the often paralyzing effect of this kind of trauma on an individual level. You know, the women we've interviewed talk at length about the career fears as well. Some of these concerns are pragmatic. It's a whole range. And I think one of the things that has been an awakening associated with this entire moment is people understanding in a way they didn't before just how hard it is to speak.

[David Remnick]

Well, what happened when you began your reporting, when you went and you probably started hearing about 3, 4 women in the beginning? Obviously there are Many more to come. And when you approach these women, what kind of resistance did you get? Or did you get immediate acceptance? What was the process?

[Ronan Farrow]

Well, you know, a good example is actually the way in which people wavered. This wasn't always linear. Rose McGowan went on the record, told her story in agonizing detail very painfully. But she then entered a, you know, legal confrontation with Harvey Weinstein and became fearful and for a time wavered, you know, and then after that, she was voluble and talking once again. In another case, Annabella Sciora, the actress, lied to me initially, said nothing happened. Nothing happened. And it was only seven months later, after our initial piece ran, that she called me and broke down and said, actually, here's what happened. And it turned out that story checked out.

[David Remnick]

Did she describe to you why initially she decided not to talk at all, why she lied to you in the beginning?

[Ronan Farrow]

She did. Anabella was one of the people to talk about this fear that I think so many survivors of sexual assault have of being branded, of this being the one thing they're known for for the rest of their lives. It is. It's, you know, an on, off switch for our society. If you come forward with this kind of an allegation, you are always a survivor with a capital S. That's your.

[David Remnick]

First paragraph in your obituary, as it were.

[Ronan Farrow]

Yeah, I think that's the fear. And, you know, perhaps we're coming to a point in this conversation where it overshadows one less, but I think that's still a very legitimate concern. But, you know, she also talked about the specific fears of this robust PR machine, a person who was very powerful and very litigious. And as we've chronicled in our reporting, also a really unthinkable before, I reported on this machine of private investigators and people operating undercover going after these women. Annabella Sciora was one of the many women who received a call that she found suspicious from a journalist who turned out to be linked to this whole thing.

[David Remnick]

But, Alex, one of the particularities of this story is that it happened with show business. And in show business, you have a man of late middle age who's basically having one attractive woman after another come in front of him, and he's choosing who shall live and who shall die, who shall be at work, who shall not. So placed in this almost parody like position of power and sexual power. But as we know, this is one instance of many, many, many in many, many fields. And this kind of activity has been going on forever. Is it good that this has broken through with a show business moment, or is there a negative side to that, do you think?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Well, I actually think in some ways it's crucial that it broke through in this kind of field, because this is the first example I can really think of when where famous women have come forward as a group and said, this happened to me, this was a problem for me. Rather than women becoming famous because they came forward with a sexual harassment or assault claim. I mean, you can think of other cases like the Anita Hill case, where that was the first time I think much of America thought about the concept of workplace sexual harassment. But nobody knew who Anita Hill was before the Clarence Thomas hearings. Nobody knew. That's what she became known for. In this case, we're dealing with actresses who the public knows. And I also think that the public has a root, really intimate relationship with Hollywood stars. You see them, you know, for much of your own life. You feel close to them in a certain way. That's what acting is. And I think it was huge to have that, you know, that level of public figure be able to come forward.

[David Remnick]

To both of you. Do you think that fame makes an accuser more credible? Or in the court of public opinion, is that somehow transferable then to the rest of society?

[Ronan Farrow]

I think it can cut both ways. You know, people can be more skeptical of Hollywood. It can be unrelatable in some ways, but it. It is true that anyone in a position of authority and influence that serves as a signaling mechanism when they come forward. Even I would say within that Hollywood community. One of the comments that has stuck with me in this is Anabella Sciora said in a very small voice, she was in a dark place at that time. You know, I looked at these other women, Gwyneth Paltrow, Mira Sorvino, and I thought, they're so beautiful. They're so poised. They come from great families. It could have never happened to them.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah, I think that's one of the reasons why the ball got rolling to the degree that it has, because you could look at women who are extremely accomplished and say, oh, if this is a problem, I think that's part of what MeToo has been about. If this was a problem for someone like her, then, wow. It's not just about me personally. I mean, the level of impact goes so far beyond Hollywood and so far beyond, honestly, any particular industry. I mean, many of these stories are personal. They have to do with family relationships. They have to do with friends or romantic relationships. It's not just in these very public or workplace situations.

[David Remnick]

Who's to Be believed automatically in these cases.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

I read something the other day that I think gets at it really well. There's a phrase, believe women. Believe women doesn't just mean automatically believe women. The man's word has no weight. I think it's meant as a corrective to what is often the situation, which is often a sense of not believing women as a default. If you were reminded to believe women as a default, it may help to correct so many of these situations.

[David Remnick]

You wrote a terrific essay about the Louis CK Incident. And I've read you for a while now, happily. But I've never heard or seen you write more with a sense of. With rage. I think I can call it that. No.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah, I think so. Fury and rage. I felt betrayed. I think other people have felt this way by Louis, specifically. Why? Because I thought he was someone and he may still be someone who in some part of his brain gets it. I was just looking at a joke of his that I linked to in my piece. That's a great joke. And he says men are the number one threat to women. What's the number one cause of death? For men, it's heart disease. It's your own heart saying, I can't go on anymore. But for women, you have to be totally insane to go on a date date with a man. And our species depends on it. I think he describes it as being. Imagine if someone said to a man, oh, you want to go out with a half bull, half lion, or something like that. And so jokes like that, I think from someone like Louis, who's so smart, really made me feel like, yeah, he totally gets it. And he's able to dissect this whole poison power system from a man's perspective. That is very impressive and rare. And so it feels, you know, it feels so disappointing.

[David Remnick]

I have to tell you, a lot of men that I know, younger and my age and older too, in this moment, have, even though they know themselves to be innocent of anything grotesque or anything on a par of what we've been discussing, they're suddenly sort of doing a sort through their romantic history of what jokes that I tell in 1998 in the workplace or my breakup with so and so was that there's a sorting through of conscience that I hear about all the time. And the flip side of this, Alex, I wonder what the conversation among women or women, you know, not just the office, just your friends, and how that's changed from today from six weeks ago.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

I think there's shock. I think it's kind of amazement and shock.

[David Remnick]

But surely this is not the first time anybody's thought about this or spoken of it.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

What changed? No, no, the amazement and shock is the idea that men are thinking about this. This has not been something that men have had to think about as a group or clearly individually. And I think it is good that men are, as you say, are asking themselves, what did I do? Did I do anything? What should I have done differently? What could I have done differently? I'm not in any way advocating for a mass paranoia or a mass. I guess I am advocating for mass reckoning, but not for a sense of personal fear and did I do something and did I screw something up? But these are questions. It cannot just be on women to police this whole situation or to ask what is appropriate, what is inappropriate. It has to be everyone. And so I think just the sense that we may not be in it alone is profound.

[David Remnick]

We also live in a particular political moment where the President of the United States is Donald Trump, who's been accused by, you know, I think, upwards of 20 women of some form of harassment, assault, even by his ex wife. What influence do you think, Ronan, that has on this moment and on this story?

[Ronan Farrow]

Certainly it comes up in my conversations with women bringing forward allegations, you know, that there is a feeling of being fed up, you know, to be a woman in America right now. I mean, I'll let you comment on this, Alex, I can only imagine is an extraordinarily frustrating experience seeing those allegations swirl around and have so little effect.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah, I think the main issue with the Trump allegations, to me, I don't really think that it was a belief problem. I think that it was a caring problem. And that was pretty devastating in the Roy Moore case.

[David Remnick]

The Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions, says, I have no reason to doubt these young women. Is that some kind of turning point? Because I have to tell you, in fairness, I'm not sure I would have heard those words from Jeff Sessions a year ago.

[Ronan Farrow]

Although the way that you just framed that does convey that we are still working from the starting point of not believing women coming forward with allegations like this. I mean, yes, that is a step that is unexpected for me too, but.

[David Remnick]

The Senate Majority Leader and the speaker of the House said the same thing.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

I'm happy to hear it. I completely agree with Ronan. It is not enough, but I am happy to hear it. It is a relief that we can, I mean, you know, that we can establish a fact and have the fact be seen as what a fact is a neutral truth.

[David Remnick]

One of the patterns of this drama has been the pattern of accusation, then the doubling and the tripling of accusations, and then comes the apologies. What do you make of the apologies that you've heard from this range of men? Whether it's Louis C.K. well, we haven't really heard from Harvey Weinstein on this, but.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Well, I think the first thing that is essential in any case is a sense of acknowledgment. We got that from Louis. He said, I acknowledge that I did these things.

[David Remnick]

What did that mean? I acknowledge it. These things happened.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Well, I think it meant that we could stop the whole debate, the he said, she said debate, so to speak, that we could put the women through that stuff.

[David Remnick]

The women said that you didn't apologize?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Well, he didn't apologize. He acknowledged, but did not apologize. I found that interesting. I found that interesting. It was pretty frustrating. People havelouis is not the worst offender on this list at all. But, yes, people have pointed out that his statement made much of the admiration that these women must have had for him and how he had betrayed their admiration. That was not really the key issue.

[Ronan Farrow]

Pointed to him asking for permission without addressing the crucial question of whether he got that permission, which did feel like a lacuna to me.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah. In his movie, which now, since it was pulled by the distributor, very few people will get to see. But I was one of those people. I saw it in a press screening last month.

[David Remnick]

What did you make of the movie?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

I found it very bad. I found it very bad. I think I led in my review.

[David Remnick]

With, like, brown paper bag afterwards. Bad or.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah, I mean, the first comment in my notebook was, they should have barf bags with this movie. So it was pretty bad. If you want a case study of the total objectification of women for no purpose, I think this is a pretty good one. But there's a line in the movie where Louis says, I'm sorry, women. And the Edie Falco character who plays his manager says, you mean, like all women? You're just apologizing to all of us? And Louis said, yeah, yeah, I'm apologizing. Or Louis character, I should say, I'm apologizing to all women. That doesn't work. And what is very complicated about these situations is that kind of blanket apology, whether it comes from a famous figure who has now been outed or whether it comes from a person writing on social media in response to the MeToo campaign. There have been various hashtags that men have used. Itwasme or I did that as a way of trying to. I think trying in a Positive sense to take accountability. But apology and redress doesn't really work that way.

[David Remnick]

You know, you look at the really large number and growing number of people who have been accused. Let's put Harvey Weinstein off to the side because his offenses seem, for the most part, much greater, or the accusations of his offenses seem much greater than, say, somebody like Louis CK Is there in your mind, for some, some of the others, any sense of reconciliation, proper apology, return to their roles in society, whether it's in show business or journalism or whatever they happen to do? Or is that a concern of the third order?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah, I think it is conceivable that there is a future for them for sure. I don't think we need to live in a society in which you are exiled for life. And that is that no matter what the level of your offense, there is a big range. I mean, one thing that's been quite extraordinary to see now is how big the range of misbehavior is, but also the fact that things that are not even remotely close to the Harvey Weinstein level can be taken seriously as well, and should be. And should be for someone like Louis. I can see him making work in the future. I certainly don't care about it right now. I don't care what his artistic future is going to look like. And he himself said in his acknowledgment statement, it's his time to listen. That's true. And if he finds a way to make amends, and most importantly, I think to empower other voices, other artists, other comedians, women, whoever, from this moment, I think that would be to the good.

[David Remnick]

Alex, as we live through this moment and you're thinking about it, what are you also hoping for? What do you hope for the future here? What's the best outcome that you can imagine?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

You know, I think growing up, I was really taught if something is wrong, you can speak up and say it. If something happens to you, if something happens to a friend, whatever it is, and then later you find out, oh, well, that's not necessarily true. I would like that to be true. I would like that to be true for my generation. And I would like that to be true for the women in the generation after me, for the girls not yet born. I just want it to become true. That's a high goal. I know, but that's what I feel.

[David Remnick]

Alex Schwartz. Ronan Farrow. Thank you. Thanks.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Thanks.

[David Remnick]

You can find all of our coverage of the Harvey Weinstein allegations and their [e-mail] in a minute. I'LL talk with a feminist icon who's been considering the roots of harassment and violence for a very long time. Bell Hooks joins me in a moment. Stick around. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. I spoke earlier in the program with the reporter Ronan Farrow about Harvey Weinstein and about the wave of allegations of sexual harassment and much worse against so many powerful men. And I've got to admit that the problem is much more pervasive and brutal than I ever understood, which has been a very sad and painful thing to realize on a personal level and on a political level. And as men are talking about this problem, one of the names, one of the writers that we keep hearing about is the feminist thinker Bell Hooks. Bell hooks has been thinking about the roots of male aggression for a very long time, and she addressed it directly in a book called the Will to Men, Masculinity and Love. It was a somewhat controversial book at the time among other feminists in particular, because rather than excoriating the worst behavior of men individually, she looks at masculinity as a whole as a kind of regime that oppresses everybody, including men. So when you look at the Louis CK Incident, for example, or series of incidents, what does it suggest to you in the broader sense, in terms of our the way we live? You've written about men and masculinity and patriarchy and all the rest. What does it suggest to you that we're not talking about quite yet?

[Bell Hooks]

Well, you said the key word, David, in all of this. I've read a ton of stuff, and hardly anybody has used the word patriarchy because in part, we want to act like this is individual male psychopathology and not like this is normal. And I went back to my 2004 book, the Will to Change Men and Masculinity, and it's so much about how we raise males to believe that violence is how you get what you want and that you have a right to violence.

[David Remnick]

You talk in that very book, in the Will to Change. You talk in the book about being a child and noticing the differences in how you and your brother were raised, starting at a very young age. Can you talk about some of those differences in order to, in a sense, begin a discussion of what patriarchy is and how it traps men and women and shapes us?

[Bell Hooks]

My father, who was a very violent, very patriarchal man, he was in the all black infantry in World War II. He was a boxer. He was a basketball player. He was all of these things that we associate with masculinity and in fact, really had a lot of disdain for my brother because actually, my brother was a much softer, warmer human being. And my father looked down on that. He felt that was not masculine.

[David Remnick]

But when you're reading about and watching the news in the last few weeks, how does this all relate to the creation of patriarchy? How are these manifestations of patriarchy? Somebody. The Louis CK Incident, this incident with various editors all around the country behaving in this way in newsrooms, not just Harvey Weinstein?

[Bell Hooks]

Well, what I would say about all of these men is that if we could research their childhoods, we would probably find that they have been the victims of some kind of trauma and probably some kinds of sexually related trauma. I think many, many, many males are abused as children in ways that we cannot talk about.

[David Remnick]

Well, one of the reasons that you got criticized for that book sometimes was that it seemed too sympathetic to men in some cases. Isn't that the case?

[Bell Hooks]

Absolutely. I mean, I still think that if we really want patriarchy to change the. We are in trouble if we turn our backs on men and not really want to examine why are men so violent. John Bradshaw used to say that the primary form of child abuse is really shaming. And I think that if we look at all of these men and their behavior, it's such shaming behavior.

[David Remnick]

I think what you're saying, and please correct me if I'm wrong, because it's essential here that rather than looking at this as a series of cases and outliers and marveling at the great number of them, we need to think of it in systemic terms that this is the way.

[Bell Hooks]

Absolutely, David.

[David Remnick]

This is the way we all are. So how do we not live like this any longer?

[Bell Hooks]

Well, one, we've got to be willing to challenge the way we parent. I mean, one of the things that I say to people, patriarchy has no gender. Just because a boy is being raised by a mother doesn't mean that that mother isn't patriarchal in her mindset, that the mother isn't telling that boy, you need to be a man. You need to be a better man than your loser dad. I can remember when dozens of mainly white feminist women were very concerned because they were having boys. And how will we raise these boys to be different? And after a while, my son wants a gun. I just can't keep it from him because all the other kids have guns. I mean, that's the interesting transition that we made away from caring about the masculinity of boys. They didn't want to See a correlation between what we take into ourselves about masculinity and how it's acted out.

[David Remnick]

Bill, what is the next step? Then you talked about parenting, obviously, as essential to shifting away from standard patriarchal relations and assumptions and understandings. What about on the political level?

[Bell Hooks]

Well, I think parenting is political. I mean, think about how many thousand of children are being dealt with violently in our society every day. I don't think, you know, I feel almost like I can't really be heard in emphasizing that this has to begin on the level of family.

[David Remnick]

Why do you say it can't be heard?

[Bell Hooks]

Because I don't think people want to acknowledge. I mean, you know, initially, when all of this stuff started with Harvey and other people, I kept thinking, I wouldn't be surprised if all of these men were not the victims of child sexual abuse. I mean, think about the movie spotlight. Think about how much more common the abuse of boys is than people want to believe and that it impacts how they deal in the world.

[David Remnick]

Bill, a final question is that most of what you suggest, a lot of what you suggest has to do with the psychological interplay between family members. This is not something that is easy to rectify. It's not something that can be changed very easily with a spending program or a. A new form of pedagogy in the schools. What's to be done?

[Bell Hooks]

Well, first of all, I think that all of the work that's being done on emotional intelligence is focusing on how closed off men are. Of course, we now have a government of closed off men. I think that we need. I personally, I'm a big fan of therapy. The men that I respect the most who have changed, whether they're gay, straight, trans, have been men who engage therapy so they can grow emotionally, so that they can be in touch with what they feel. So they can feel. I think these men that we're talking about are not men who feel. And I have been Louis CK Fan in terms of his comedy, but I think you can see him as a harsh kind of unfeeling man in the way he constructs his comedy.

[David Remnick]

Did you feel the same way about Bill Cosby when you were listening to his comedy?

[Bell Hooks]

Hated Cosby from jump. He was too good to be true bell hooks.

[David Remnick]

Thank you very much.

[Bell Hooks]

Okay, bye.

[David Remnick]

Bell hooks is the author of the Will to Change Men, Masculinity and Love, along with dozens of other books of poetry and theory and children's fiction as well. Now, last year, I had the pleasure of speaking on stage with one of the artists I admire most. In music. Bruce Springsteen. One of the things we talked about was his very difficult relationship with his father, a true patriarch of the old school. Bruce's memoir, Born to Run, had just come out, and I asked him to read a passage from it.

[Bruce Springsteen]

Okay, here we go. Unfortunately, my dad's desire to engage with me always came after the nightly religious ritual of the sacred six pack was one beer after another in the pitch dark of our kitchen. It was always then that he wanted to see me was always the same. A few moments of feigned parental concern for my well being, followed by the real deal, the hostility and raw anger toward his son, the only other man in the house. It was a shame. He loved me, but he couldn't stand me. He felt we competed for my mother's affections. We did. He also saw in me too much of his real self. My pop was built like a bull, always in work clothes. He was strong, physically formidable. Toward the end of his life, he fought back from death many times. Inside, however, beyond his rage, he harbored a gentleness, a timidity, shyness and a dreamy insecurity. These are all the things that I wore on the outside. And reflections of these qualities in his boy repelled him, made him angry. It was soft. He hated soft. Of course, he'd been brought up soft. A mama's boy, just like me.

[David Remnick]

Princess cards she sends me with her regards. Whoa, borrow my shine. On the New Yorker Radio Hour next week, my conversation with Bruce Springsteen. You're absolutely welcome. I'm David Remnick. Thank you for joining me this week. I hope you enjoyed the show. Have a great Thanksgiving.

[Narrator/Producer]

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbus of Tune Yard, with additional music by Alexis Cuadrado. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Turina Endowment Fund.