Colton Ribling
English 219-I
Brian Jansen
Red Deer College
March 26th, 2018
Response Article
The article, “Feminist Politics: Where We Stand” written by Bell Hooks is meant to address what a feminist movement’s motives are and what they stand for. Feminism is often overlooked or mocked as an organization that is anti-men, thanks to the radical ideologies of the social justice warriors as well as the fact this issue of gender equality is just recently being added into the curriculum of education systems, so the less educated ignorant people of older generations don’t know what they are even against they’re the ‘this system has worked for how long, why change now?’ people of the world. Hook’s main point in this small handbook is that Feminism’s motives are to end the oppression, sexism and sexist exploitation of women in the patriarchy in both society but as well as the work force. Hooks uses her personal experience of having to explain and educate people on what the movement truly stands for. As well as the assumptions and accusations she has faced when she has mentioned that she is a feminist writer.
She states that most people learn about the feminist social movement through a mass media that is patriarchal lead, therefore the result of this is the media only sharing part of the story. The general population knows of feminism through the media that the focuses of the movement are freedom of same sex marriage, reproductive rights, and to challenge domestic violence and rape. Hook’s uses this piece of writing as a vessel to help bring feminism into a positive light but doesn’t define the specifics of goals the feminists want to achieve; she disavows the movement’s aspects that are the important points attached to this movement. Such as the wage gab, hooks make it out to be that the wage gab in a patriarchal favored workforce or the fight to end gender roles and perceptions are not objectives where the movement wants societal change. The only addressing Hooks does of what the feminists want to achieve in a rather generic and vague statement that the movement is to oppose sexism and fight patriarchy. I found this article started off well at the beginning but as I further read confusion started to set in as this article is hard to follow as the author bounces around from point to point. This only making what the form and motives are of this handbook on the feminist ideology lack luster and very unclear. The mentioning of races and political just further muddy the waters.
Hooks explains that early feminist activists were the anti-men sentiment, as they were responding with anger to the oppression they had experienced. This is where she starts to mention race because early feminists had their consciousness raised [a Marxist idea that most people don’t feel oppressed and accept that their lack of power and the status of society as natural, don’t become aware of the oppression and the chance of fighting for change until something addresses their attention] because not only were the fighting for gender equality but also anti-racial and anti-classism activist movements. The white feminists were working on a political agenda of socialism, black women were fighting for black liberation and civil rights, and the First Nations women were working to achieve indigenous rights.
The confusion continues with evolution of feminism. Hooks states, that the source of sexism was not just coming from men but that females could be sexist as well. She also explains that feminists realized the other forms oppression matter to their activism and women should examine how they treat one another as they just like men oppress one another by using sex, socio-economic status, and race. So, if that is so then couldn’t we agree society is just a judgemental dog eat dog world of assholes?
Hooks points out there are indeed two types of feminists: those who sought to achieve change regarding gender equality within the current system, known as reformers and those who sought after the idea of transforming the current societal systems, these activists known as revolutionaries. Which of these ideologies has a better chance of getting the attention of men in our political systems? The reformers, because they just want equality and equal rights to opportunities in society without completely tearing apart the system and starting over like the revolutionary ideology pushes for. In fact, per Hooks most women [privileged white women] abandoned the radical ideas of revolutionary feminism as they started to see change in the existing system by gained economic power. Revolutionary feminism has only progressed within academic institutions and it has never been accessible to the public, so that only “those among us who are highly literate, well educated, and usually materially privileged” could access the materials to learn and interact with the ideology.
Hooks whom wasn’t done with confusing her audience with accusing reformists of helping the patriarchal system that allowed their gain of freedom and economic success in the current structure to suppress the revolutionaries. Hooks makes it out to be that reformists and the white men sat down at the negotiations table, in exchange for a few societal freedoms the reformists must leave the outspoken revolutionaries behind. The argument is centered around how more and more privilege women began to gain these societal freedoms and opportunities in the workforce would make the radical ideas for change easier to believe as unnecessary for a virtuous a society. I agree with this argument because we are ignorant to the people that have less opportunities than us and thus making them easy to overlook and forget.
The thing I took away from reading this piece of literature that was supposed to be eye opening and educational but end up being strikingly unclear is that the assumption that structures of society are a white supremacist capitalist patriarchies and that those descriptive attributes are the sources of oppression. I don’t necessarily disagree with this because yes, it is evident that the elitist 1% and people that are in power are primarily Caucasian men or families, but I do disagree that these socialist activism groups like to point the finger at white people because of the oppression of the vulnerable throughout history. It’s the past if you look back you can either focus on all the negative shit or you can appreciate how far we have come as human race and are continuing to evolve which makes the future bright and exciting. Political structures don’t create rights; they find them and then they make laws to protect those rights. College students weren’t alive during the racial segregation and discrimination of African American people but we learned about it and should appreciate that today is progressive with change and not like how it used to be just like tomorrow isn’t going to be the same as today. Us millennials have been alive to witness the fight for LGBTQ rights that was eventually won and is now recognized in political structures and change will continue to happen. Current events in the activist’s world women’s rights and freedom are now up for discussion in political picture, these ideas are continuing to evolve and have growth in awareness. Next rights that will be rallied behind social interest groups in hopes for recognizing the issue and eventual change is disability rights. We as a society need to realize that we are all human, you cut me I bleed, I cut you and you’ll bleed too.
Works Cited
Hooks, B. Feminist Politics: Where We Stand. Essay Writing for Canadian Students with Readings. 8th Edition, Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2015. Pg 255