Comments on: Feminist Food for Thought: bell hooks

By: Mireille

Mireille — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:04:14 +0000

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.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:54:35 +0000

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.

By: SarahMC

SarahMC — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:39:57 +0000

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.

By: jdregent

jdregent — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:05:56 +0000

that makes sense.

By: Pilgrim Soul

Pilgrim Soul — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:43:05 +0000

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.

By: jdregent

jdregent — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:36:47 +0000

sorry if that sounded totally patronizing/matronizing.

By: jdregent

jdregent — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:34:59 +0000

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.

By: Pilgrim Soul

Pilgrim Soul — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:31:25 +0000

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.

By: jdregent

jdregent — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:28:38 +0000

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)

By: BeSarcastic

BeSarcastic — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:24:08 +0000

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.