Hatty & Hooks

I think the Hooks reading has been my favorite so far--as far as explaining and describing feminism, she's found the perfect balance between Valenti's moderately crass, in-your-face style of expression and the hum-drum, professionally written (almost banal) delivery. Her definition of feminism is genderless, which I think is very important. So many women (and men) think that the feminist movement serves to blame all men for oppressing women, and is even "anti-male." But Hooks makes explicit the fact that women can be as sexist and oppressive (towards other women!) as men can be, and that men can be as feminist (and seemingly anti-male) as female feminists! Furthermore, her definition of feminism is ageless. I think our society's "feminist" stereotype encompasses a small range of women, from young adult to middle-aged; from hairy, lesbian, hippie chick to a more traditional wealthy, White woman. In reality, however, I think Hooks sums it up best when she writes, "sexist thinking and action is the problem, whether those who perpetuate it are female or male, child or adult." None of our readings thus far have succeeded in stripping the stereotypical feminist identity so bare.
I found it interesting that reformist feminists, who were primarily concerned with gaining gender equality in the current patriarchy actually came second to the revolutionary feminists, whose anger toward male domination ignited the rebellion and resistance that fed the contemporary women's liberation. The revolutionaries' (justified) anger at gender injustice and their urge to completely transform the current patriarchy put them at odds with the reformists. I hadn't previously considered that within feminism, there were different, often conflicting goals that caused two distinct feminist groups to form. Interestingly enough, Hooks points out that reformist feminism was the only (sub)group that surfaced in public; radical/revolutionary feminism only surfaced in academia. Because reformist feminism was easier to accept for both men and women (feminist or not) and was thus more successful than its radical counterpart, reformist feminists (some who had switched from revolutionary feminism...ouch!) stopped considering revolutionary goals and even wished to silence the revolutionaries. Shockingly, the majority of our society hasn't rejected revolutionary feminism because, in reality, we don't know what it is! It was kept under wraps because reformists began to gain gender equality in the existing patriarchy, and that was good enough...it's like a huge government secret that's kept from the masses.
I love how Hooks says "that there could be as many versions of feminism as there were women," which I think goes well with Valenti's idea that, "at the end of the day, feminism is really something you define yourself." Further, I agree with Hooks' claim that a woman's politics define her degree (if any) of feminism, i.e. "one cannot be anti-choice [pro-life] and be a feminist."
In her closing paragraph (Ch.1), she says that "feminist politics is losing momentum because feminist movement has lost clear definitions," but when did this happen? And how? And why did we let it?
In Hooks' chapter 12 excerpt, I think one of the most valuable points made is that feminist reform is not at the individual level. Male domination and female oppression and exploitation remain alive even when/if individual men stop practicing and supporting the patriarchy and its sexist ideals. Hooks explains the way in which the conservative mass media's stereotypical portrayals of feminists as lesbians and the feminist movement as "anti-male" scare people away (by feeding into preexisting notions of homophobia) and prevent the true goals of the feminist movement from being fulfilled.
It was refreshing when she pointed out the the patriarchy also hurts men by defining rigid sex roles and forcing men to feel as though they have to conform to the "ideal male," who unfortunately dominates women. Patriarchy strips individual males from their true identity because they feel pressure to adopt a sexist, masculine gender identity. Because this pressure, accepting and supporting feminism and the feminist movement became risky for men, who often shy away from standing up for what they believe in (whether it's pro-feminism or not), ultimately fueling the patriarchy fire.
The "men's liberation movement" seems a bit ridiculous; perhaps the men were merely trying to call attention the fact that they felt some (radical) feminists were acting too negatively toward individual men because of their severe generalizations about male domination. I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not!
Lastly, I thought it was important that Hooks emphasized the fact that the feminist theory failed to provide an alternative or better-suited patriarchy and masculinity. In a way, it seems like some feminists in the movement only hated on the current situation and generated no motivating alternatives to end sexism, oppression, and/or exploitation of women.

Publish Post

As we continue discussing the definitions of conflict, violence, and aggression in class, I'll consult the Hatty reading with greater depth (it's soooo long!) and blog about that and our other readings in the days to come :)