This recurring feature, curated for now by Pilgrim Soul unless other Harpies wish to leap in, directs Harpy readers to important feminist thoughts and concepts as spoken by some of her favourite feminists on and off the web. The appraisal of the value of these snippets is, of course, entirely Pilgrim Soul’s, and does not necessarily reflect the views of other Harpies. Feel free to discuss in the comments here.
Today’s Feminist Food For Thought comes from bell hooks, who has written countless books and essays about race, gender, class and culture. Here she is talking about the role of “equality” in feminism in Feminist Theory: From Magin to Center, which was written in 1984:
Women in lower-class and poor groups, particularly those whoare non-white, would not have defined women’s liberation as women gaining social equality with men, since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share a common social status. Concurrently, they know that many males in their social groups are exploited and oppressed. Knowing that men in their groups do not have social, political and economic power, they would not deem it liberatory to share their social status. While they are aware that sexism enables men in their respective groups to have privileges that are denied them, they are more likely to see exaggerated expressions of male chauvinism among their peers as stemming from the male’s sense of himself as powerless and ineffectual in relation to ruling male groups, rather than an expression of an overall privileged social status. From the very onset of the women’s liberation movement, these women were suspicious of feminism precisely because they recognized the limitations inherent in its definition. They recognized the possibility that feminism defined as social equality with men might easily become a movement that would primarily affect the social standing of white women in middle- and upper-class groups while affecting only in a very marginal way the social status of working-class and poor women.
Et tu, commenters? Do you think the goal of feminism should be equality with men? Do you think that chauvinist acts by disenfranchised classes of men (whether economically or racially-disenfranchised) are best understood as expressions of frustration?
Good question. I shy away from the phase “equal to men” because it implies that men are the default, and manhood is the pinacle of existance.
“Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition.” – Timothy Leary
Whether sexism on the part of disenfranchised men is an expression of frustration, I don’t particularly care. I’m frustrated about shit but I don’t take it out on other people who don’t deserve it. Using your own oppression as an excuse to opppress others is abhorent.
I definitely don’t think equality with men in all fields of endeavor makes sense. Do we want to be equally represented in the criminal justice system (don’t worry, they’re working on it!)? Fighting and dying in wars (though of course we die in equal or greater measure as civilian casualties)? Abusing and doing violence to others? It also ignores the fact that for some of us to get a bigger piece of pie, others of us are gonna have to let go of some pie.
I think a distinction between the goals of feminism and the goals of feminists. I’ve had discussions with feminists who don’t understand my desire for gender parity in the world if sports. To me, feminism means to advance the rights of all women and to examine the current patriarchy-influenced social structures so that they can hopefully be reconfigured better serve those who are screwed by the patriarchy. And that group is not limited to women, and any disposessed class of either gender (like gay males) will eventually benefit from feminist aims.
SarahMC beat me to it. Leary’s quote is great because it exposes how imprecise the term “equality” can be. I want equal access and opportunity, but I don’t want to behave the same as the white, privileged, male class — I want to be better.
In a capitalist society, money is power. I’m not making a moral judgment about it, just stating a fact. Those who have it can make the rules. Typically, it has been men. Those men who are disenfranchised from that power and seek to gain it commit chauvinist acts probably, in part, because they model the behavior of the class they want to be in. I’m oversimplifying it, as with anything that takes 5 minutes to type on the internet.
I agree with hooks that feminism can be seen as “a movement that would primarily affect the social standing of white women in middle- and upper-class groups while affecting only in a very marginal way the social status of working-class and poor women.” Maybe it could be viewed that seeking to be equal to men means having access to monetary power; when you’re poor and disenfranchised, having that monetary power is never an option, so feminism just doesn’t speak to you in the same way.
Just thinking out loud.
BeSarcastic, your remark does put me in mind, though, of the philosophical observation of one President Josiah Bartlet, which I have to paraphrase: the great paradox of the American Dream is that everyone is waiting for the day they’ll be rich themselves, and thus tend to protect the interests of the rich even when they are dirt poor.
I think the issue with saying that men are modeling class behavior to gain approval is that it isn’t clear to me that the dynamic is so obviously instructive that way. I mean, I suppose it could be if someone emerged from a matriarchal society, but limiting our views to America here for the moment, is it true that only white upper-class men have this “indigenous” (and I use the term loosely) ability/inclination to oppress others?
I just watched that episode!
I don’t think it’s “indigenous” or mysterious in any way, it’s actual. They have more power and money, so they can oppress others “better.” But maybe I’m not understanding what you are saying.
Awkward phrasing, I know. What I’m trying to ask is whether we really think that these men experience dissonance between what they do (chauvinist locker-room boy tak to curry favour with rich white men) and what they think (i.e. women are really deserving of respect).
Great West Wing quote.
And good question, Pilgrim Soul. I admit that it’s just too simplistic to say that it’s a matter of modeling class behavior, even if part of it can be attributed to that. I don’t think oppressive behavior is indigenous to males — white or other. However, after generations and generations of privilege and power, the threat of it being taken away creates a backlash — even if it was only a promise and not your reality. I’m not sure I’m articulating this correctly.
I think hooks is saying less that men of color who are chauvinistic are “faking” being chauvinistic or just trying to curry favor than that their chauvinism takes places in a different social milieu that makes it mean differently. I don’t think it goes to the intent of the chauvinist as much as to its social meaning. I think it goes to the tension around when for example white feminists “call out” misogyny in rap music, let’s say, or as I mentioned last week unreflexively call for harsher criminal sentences in domestic violence, rape or other crimes that target women. You’ll notice that hooks says that women of color are likely to INTERPRET chauvinistic behavior differently than white women may, rather than saying that it doesn’t have a bad effect on women. Does that make sense?
PS (i think i spelled chauvinist wrong every time but can’t care)
Oh yes, JD, that’s what I think hooks is saying. But I hear two responses: the hooks response, which is “sexism and racism are part and parcel of the same problem” and then I hear the “this is why I’m not a feminist!” type response. The latter does worry me; the former is fine.
Well I think as feminists we have to listen to women and the way they describe their lives even if they reject our label, because it instructs us about the limits of our movement and how to help it grow and be healthy. I think hooks is doing that. And I guess that is why I try and find sense in what women say even if it just sounds like “i choose my choice,” because a lot of times they are pointing to a real issue in feminism even if they aren’t articulating it the way I might. Like, maybe it SHOULD worry us, but for our sakes as feminists. You know? Without diluting feminism beyond any meaning that is.
sorry if that sounded totally patronizing/matronizing.
It didn’t, particularly, although I do think we have to take into account the fact that a lot of women are, as hooks says elsewhere (sorry I read the whole book for this one), rejecting feminism because they have internalized certain sexist attitudes themselves. So most of the time, when I hear, “this is why I’m not a feminist!” I diagnose it as such. whereas “choose my choice” feminists usually do call themselves feminists, in my experience anyway.
that makes sense.
I don’t see why one would conclude that oppressed classes of men fake being chauvinistic. Why wouldn’t they be genuinely chauvinist? Shit rolls downhill.
I’m a bit groggy from a nap, but I think there’s something in that WW reference to the American Dream (the latter is something I’m wrestling with in my own work), just substitute “Patriarchy” for “American Dream” and bingo!
In the comments to the Radical Feminism post a few days ago, someone(if you recognize yourself, come out and say hello!) said that she wouldn’t entirely get rid of dominance and submission paradigm; that it is useful, or necessary, or something. Is it? I would love to leave that model behind, if I knew how, because for some (The Patriarchs, Capitalist Pigs, etc.) to be on top, to win, to live the Dream, most others (lots of men & all women, the poor, etc.) have to lose. They are both pyramid schemes and as such require many to buy in to the scam, though only a relative very few will profit. To me, that’s an indefensible system. The problem is 1) figuring out what would replace it, and 2) ushering it in.
I saw what I think hooks is describing described somewhere as “kiss up/kick down”. And while it might seem that such an attitude may improve your lot, it actually doesn’t move you anywhere in an absolute sense. You may feel a bit farther above those you consider below yourself, but you’re just cementing the unearned privilege of those you’re kissing up to pretty much making it even more difficult to break down that barrier.
Ann Coulter does it, Michael Steele does it, I’ve seen post-op trans women pull the same shit on pre- and non-op women. And I’m sure that I exhibit those behaviors at times. It’s a constant learning process and my foot has ended up in my mouth many times, and when it’s pointed out to me I try to take the criticism… I earned it and I can try to use it constructively. I’ve said “that’s gay” or “that’s lame” and realized after the words left my mouth the heteronormative and ableist attitudes implied by those words. Damn, life is hard enough for all of us if we worried more about pulling people below us up rather than trying to climb over others to selfishly improve just our own lot, we’d all end up better off.
And if I had some pixie dust I’d be able to fly.
By the way, I’m watching a dalmation riding a bike on CNN right now.