clear/concise definition with unity

By Mal on February 28, 2010 10:44 PM | 7 Comments | No TrackBacks

Feminism is obviously a political issue. As on the front of 'Feminism is for Everybody' by Bell Hooks it states, "Passionate Politics" It is something that can be extremely controversial and is something that women have been fighting for for a substantial amount of time now. The thing that strikes me most about the fact that it is a political issue is the fact at how global it is and how it is a battle and it loses steam and gains it in the course of the fight. This is how many political issues go, and the political issue of feminism and 'gender equality' is no different. There is such a wide range of support and interest in the fight for gender equality, and this is what drives the fight and makes is such an issue of legitimate 'politics'. Since there is so much interest in it and since it affects almost every person in the world, it is immediately considered something of politics. As far as it being global, it is emphasized in 'Feminism is for Everybody' that all over the world 'female freedom fighters' have been struggling against the patriarchy and male domination. However, earlier in the reading of 'Feminism is for Everybody' it specifically emphasizes that feminism is not only a female's fight, but a male's fight as well. It says that it effects everyone and is not only a woman's issue in any way, shape or form. It is contradictory statements like this one that lead to fall-backs in the fight for feminism. The feminism fight and political issue needs to create a more clear-cut and concise definition of what their goal is. Bell Hooks states that women of all types are saying that they are so called 'feminists', when they don't even know why they are and what makes them different or defines them as 'feminists'. The movement needs more precision. Just as with politics, issues that do not have precise goals never get the time of day and nothing gets improved. Lastly, as far as global feminism goes. The fact that the feminist movement is so global, is the reason it creates such a boom and can be considered a political issue. However, the global aspect of the movement is also creating segregation among the 'freedom fighters' It is as if the "privileged-class white woman swiftly declared their 'ownership' of the movement, placing working-class white women, poor white women and all women of color in the position of followers". This is wrong and when one thinks of a party's political fights, no party ever makes advancements on their political issues without uniting the political party as one. This is the same with feminism since feminism is a political issue. The fighters in the movement need to unite and make a common goal and then give it their best efforts. Without doing these things the political issue of 'feminism' will never go anywhere and will be at a constant stand-still.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/108940

Comments

Matt | March 2, 2010 3:34 PM | Reply

I totally agree with you, Mal. I'm glad you pointed out those two contradictory passages from "Feminism is for Everybody".
In my opinion, from a male point of view, when feminists use the words "fight against male domination", they push away the men that are needed to bring about cultural change. It's no wonder that many people in the general public immediately think of man-hater when they think of feminism. It is also ironic that the book that this passage is from is called "Feminism is for Everybody".
I'm in no way saying that the vast majority of feminists hate men, I'm just saying that when they use strong anti-male rhetoric, they should not expect men to jump on board with their movement.
danderson812@hotmail.com replied to comment from Matt | March 2, 2010 8:59 PM | Reply

Matt, from another "male" point of view, I think you've completely misunderstanding the implications of the phrase "male domination" in hooks' argument. Her assertion is not at all anti-male, rather she uses the phrase in conjunction with patriarchy in order to unpack the plurality of oppressive structures, one of which is, in fact, male domination. hooks quite clearly articulates that feminism BENEFITS men just as much as it benefits women, thus oppressive constructs like patriarchy, or male domination, is a hindrance to EVERYBODY just as much as feminism is for everybody.
Also, a statement such as "when feminists use the words 'fight against male domination', they push away the men that are needed to bring about cultural change" positions men, once again, at the center of the discussion--implying that "women's issues" are somehow irrelevant to men, or hold no legitimate cultural value. Framing feminism as "their" movement, furthermore, points to women as Other, which is a problem in and of itself.
Tara | March 3, 2010 12:32 AM | Reply

I think what is really interesting about this is that when you look at feminism from a historical perspective it has always had to deal with how to define the term. Starting with the suffrage movement women of color and white woman have been divided, and this is still happening today. The problem is that both women and men need to realize when they are in a position of privilege and how to take ownership of that and use it in a positive way instead of an oppressive way. Males have historically been in control. That is not bad or good, it is just the truth. What can men do to understand that privilege? White people have always been given more than people of color- this is just a fact. What can white women do to become involved in the fight for rights for minority men and women- recognize their privilege and then not support it. Straight people don't have to worry about discrimination- gay people do- what can we do? Challenge that thinking. The first thing I can do is recognize my privilege- I am white and straight but I am also female- I need to understand how these aspects of me intersect with the world around me and how this gives me power or takes away from my power. It is not bad to be white or male or straight it is just that these are the characteristics of the dominant society. This is not a made up thing- it is a fact and accepting that is part of the battle. I am not a bad person because I am white it just means that I have to educate myself and understand how I play a role in the oppression of people of color and what I can do to change that. Men should not be offended when bell hooks talks about male domination because she is only stating a fact. One of bell hook's ways of expression her oppression is by not capitalizing her first and last name. She is a woman of color and therefore she is making a statement by making her name appear in the way it does. This is her reflection of how racism and patriarchy have affected her and why it is important for her to be a feminist. Most feminist have their own definition of what it means to be a feminist. There will never be a strict or narrow definition of this only because feminism has to take on so many issues. A central aspect of all feminism however, is to challenge patriarchal institutions and how they influence the oppression of not only white women but all women.
Michelle J. | March 4, 2010 5:05 AM | Reply

I can totally agree with you, Mal. I especially like the passages you brought up from 'Feminism is for Everybody', “it specifically emphasizes that feminism is not only a female's fight, but a male's fight as well. “. Hooks sounds like she is against men, however that is not true. She is just stating her opinion as a female who is colored. I’m sure everyone has different definitions or meanings of feminism. Before I read Hooks’ book, I had my own definition toward feminism and I realized later, feminism is not just about supporting females. In our society, we do not get variety of chances to learn what feminism is. Since feminism is one of global issues, more opportunities need to be created to make people to understand better, clear definition of feminism.
Sara | March 4, 2010 9:30 AM | Reply

I think that you meant to write that bell hooks is a person of color. "Colored" is a loaded term and connected to a long history of racist language aimed at insulting and oppressing African Americans. Check out what Rinku Sen writes about this issue (I posted a youtbue video from her about "illegal immigrants" a few weeks back):

The term “people of color” has deep historical roots, not all of them positive. Many confuse it for the clearly negative “colored.” The Oxford English Dictionary finds a usage as early as 1781, and its liberatory origins seem to be in the French colonial reference to “gens de couleur libre,” or free people of color. Racial justice activists here, influenced by radical theorists such as Franz Fanon using it, picked it up in the late 1970s and began to use it widely by the early 80s. A decade later, it was in popular use. Although I couldn’t confirm it, it’s quite possible that socialist feminists of color first used “women of color,” which was then broadened.

You can find Rinku Sen's entire article here. Does anyone know of any other helpful blog articles that discuss this issue? I did a quick search, but didn't come up with that much.
M. replied to comment from Sara | March 5, 2010 6:47 PM | Reply

(Somehow I originally posted this comment under a completely irrelevant entry -- since I don't know how to delete it, I'll re-post it here, where it makes sense.)
I think it's always beneficial, for everybody, to be reminded that how we utilize language in our speech and in writing is tremendously important in impacting the subversion or reinforcement of oppressive constructs -- consciously or not. I've been reading through some essays/interviews in The Angela Y. Davis Reader lately and came across this discussion of the use of the term "women of color," which may be helpfully informative to all who are interested. (The most relevant selections are on pages 299-300, 313-314, 318-323; and it's probably also important to note that this discussion took place in 1995.)
Sara | March 5, 2010 7:32 PM | Reply

Thanks for posting this M! Very helpful. We will be reading and watching Angela Davis later on in the semester when we study the Prison Industrial Complex.