Feminism is simply a movement of utmost emotion in society. The deficiency of a uniform definition, interior divisions, exclusion and a complex strategy of oppression in society make it much harder to make the women's liberation movement. 1 of the most provocative and direct feminist theorists has late died. In the book Feminism Theory: From Margin to Center points to many flaws and weaknesses in the women's liberation movement, while seeking solutions and challenging readers. It is worth looking at any of them (citations from the Women's Strikers are included in the headlines to emphasize the proximity of the problem to our Polish yard).
“There is no feminism without trans women!” – interior disputes about truth
bell hooks collided with many types of oppression: sexist (as a woman), racial (as an African American) and classy. This shaped her views as feminists, but besides critics of the women's liberation movement. So what is incorrect with feminism? What makes any women who work regular for women's rights and, as it were, have internalised demands for this trend refrain from calling them feminists? According to the author Feminist explanation This is the "tripartition of oppression". It is easy to talk about the exploitation of women at universities, in air-conditioned reading rooms, cafes, or at women's meetings that can afford specified an exit. let in the sense that once, they can afford coffee; two, they have individual to leave their children with or they simply don't have them; three, they are not active in a relation with a violent partner or partner; four, they are cisporous or they live in a territory where they will not be attacked for being a non-cis; 5 and more – they are privileged adequate to announcement inequality and be able to talk about it, but not to feel equal to men.
The basic charge made by bell hooks feminism is to make it a tool for a beautiful war of white privileged women excluding representatives of cultural minorities or those of the working class. As he wrote in his book, “privileged feminists could not talk to different groups of women due to the fact that either they did not full realize the relation between sexual, class and racial oppression, or they did not take these relations seriously”[1]. It's hard to disagree. Today, an example of specified a deficiency of knowing can be a genuine surprise to women who cannot simply walk distant from a violent partner. After all, the real property marketplace and lease specified a stable, economical force does not exist, work can be found immediately, and the collection of alimony is immediate. What about the intellectual entanglement in the mechanisms of violence, depression, and deficiency of self-confidence caused by years of suffering? Smile, the planet is beautiful, you can do it! Yes, specified naive optimism and the deficiency of simple empathy in the privileged people of mainstream might be somewhat discouraging the liberation movement of women.
Such selective perception of feminism leads to another problem identified by bell hooks: no uniform definition of this current. This deficiency of the author of “Feminist Theory...” describes as “a desperate motion expressing the belief that solidarity between women is not possible at all[2]It’s okay. ” Well, specified convictions do not bode well for any group. The mainstream definition of the women's liberation movement (actually 1 of many definitions) implies equalisation of the position of women with the position of men. Here the full text seems to shout in response: BUT WHICH? Which women? Which men? These statuses in no sex are equal! Both men and women are treated differently not only due to sex but besides due to sexual orientation, belief, skin color, education, membership of circumstantial professional groups and many another factors. specified a definition in the light of so many variations is simply not valid. It gives quite a few arguments to regulation out full groups of women. However, it is another argument for the association of sexist oppression with class and racial oppression. With this lead, bell hooks takes its readers and readers on a socio-political level.
"I want I could abortion my government" – feminism and politics
"Feminism defined in political terms, which emphasize both collective and individual experiences, encourages women to enter a fresh area – to abandon the apolitical attitude that sexism attributes to us, to educate political awareness"[3]Here 1 of the leading feminists calls for a look at her own situation. To quit simplification that "men are enemies" and a thorough analysis of both their own and all women's situations. To research various political aspects of women's reality, to recognise not only sexist oppression, but besides class and race (yes, these 3 elements are very frequently highlighted).
The reflection of these mechanisms led bell hooks to indicate what is the origin of these 3 phenomena – it is simply a mechanics of dominance. In order for feminism to make sense and to proceed to produce tangible results, there is simply a request to work towards the abolition of dominance. The assumptions of the women's liberation movement are, of course, primarily about this sexist one, but turning a blind eye to the full phenomenon in its fight will have the other effect. However, 1 cannot stay inactive and be content with the privileges for which it is acceptable to grant a group of disadvantaged groups. In order to free ourselves from domination, we must act to lift it. By staying distant from politics, polling polling polls and sources of cognition about the current situation in the country and in the world, 1 can at most express discontent on coffee or in social media. Feminism is simply a call for activity.
Here is simply a seemingly tiny but crucial item of the area of action and identity of feminists themselves. The author tells us what it is, on her own example: as a black woman, she was frequently asked what was more crucial to her: the fight for the abolition of sexist oppression or racism?[4] She was frequently attempted to engage in specified dualism, an alternative. This is not about what decision to give precedence to which to make more crucial and which to leave little important. frequently (too often) there are attempts to identify people with circumstantial movements. Statements specified as: “I am a feminist”, “I am a vegan” or akin impose on me certain patterns, put people into tight forms, leaving no area for another ideals or activities. As a useful bell hooks strategy, it simply suggests that "I support feminism" as a socio-political movement. This can be an incentive to research feminist theories and overlook fruitless simplifications. Yes, you can be a feminist and fight classism, racism, environmental demolition and all that the feminists consider important.
“When the law does not defend me, I will defend my sister” – the thought of sisterhood
"The abandonment of sisterhood as an expression of political solidarity weakens and diminishes the feminist movement. Solidarity strengthens the resistance. There cannot be a mass feminist movement to abolish sexist oppression without a united front – women must take the initiative and show the strength of solidarity”[5].
No movement has the chance to last without consent, commitment and joint conflict between those involved. interior disputes and divisions only weaken him. It is so essential to find a common point in this thicket of differences. bell hooks powerfully warns against joining women as a "victim". The argument here is highly simple and clear: pointing out the position of the victim as a common feature of women makes these strong and assertive feel unnecessary and unnecessary in motion – they have nothing to fight for erstwhile they just don't feel attacked or able to defend themselves. In addition, building your identity on the image of the victim is usually toxic in the planet – abandoning the belief of any control over your life (even if it is small) is devastating for those oppressed. Building bonds based on victimization is psychologically demoralizing. Importantly, for privileged women, it is frequently tantamount to abandoning work for their own racism, homophobia and classism. Building relationships between women of your own circle, based on depreciation, creating an illusion of your own strength on excluding people from your own group is simply a patriarch in disguise.
So what should sisterhood be based on? Strong. The bell hooks definitely mention readers to learning – to getting to know themselves, to honestly verify their attitudes about racist, classist, homophobic, transphobic and another internalized mechanisms of oppression. It refers to the political situation, encourages its analysis and active, joint action to change it. And finally, she's making me rotation up my sleeves to work on getting free of sexism. It is he who tells mothers to teach children that there are only 2 possible options in behavior: being subjected to or dominant, it leads to hatred towards another women, to depreciating parenthood, to suspicion and toxic rivalry.
It is hard work on many levels, but if it is not taken up, the thought of sisterhood will only be its own caricature, and efforts to fight for women's rights without designation of another forms of oppression will be destroyed. Therefore, for siblings to exist, communication, communication, learning each other's cultural codes – so that differences between us are a origin of knowledge, not fear or contempt. It is besides essential to realize that not everyone is oppressed and harmed to the same extent, so as not to talk on behalf of people whose experience is unknown to us. Without criticism and rejection of racism and class exploitation, actual siblings will not exist.
"Men's Support for Women's Strike"– Feminism and feminists and men
Feminism does not presuppose the creation of a utopian state of women in which men are not present, or pass through any places, unwilling to be seen. The feminist movement does not presume better treatment of women or men. The opposition of feminists should not hit men as such, but the strategy of domination, which, as I have cited many times for bell hooks, is not purely sexist. Moreover, sexist oppression itself does not apply solely to women.
Among the allegations against liberal feminists bell hooks points out that in order to destruct the sex division of labour, they paradoxically attributed women to conducting a feminist revolution as a gender-based task[6]. The rhetoric of recognizing all men as misogynistic perpetrators, and women as defenseless victims, only strengthens sexist oppression. A feminist activist notes, for example, that white middle-class women envied privileged men and demanded equal participation in class privileges, skillfully aside the fact that they themselves have more power than cultural number men and are not so frequently exposed to exploitation and oppression. In this way, they themselves provided (and frequently proceed to provide) support to the oppressive system.
As a consequence of specified actions, many women in the working class were alienated from feminism as they felt they had more in common with men of their class group. They are united in the conflict for a better life. This can besides be seen from the example of dark-skinned women who fought together with men and fight for the abolition of racist oppression. This led to a bond of concern and activity for the common cause. Pointing out, for example, cooperation between the sexes in the fight against racism, bell hooks shows the other of this phenomenon among feminists: reactionary separatism, whose premise is to keep men as far distant from feminism as possible. There is no good solution due to the fact that men are besides raised in the sexist strategy and it is besides their occupation to fight it. Although men are not exploited by sexism, they besides have negative effects.
In order to guarantee that the fight for the abolition of sexist oppression in society is effectively carried out, it is simply a logical request for society as a full to participate. Men must talk loudly about sexist oppression, take work for their behaviour and undertake to rise awareness of others. Women should recognise their conflict to disassemble the oppressive system.
Feminism, contrary to the caricature imagination of his opponents and opponents, is not a bundle of stereotypes and aggression, locked in women shouting about the extermination of men. In the light of considerations, bell hooks (and many another theoreticians) is simply a thought and political trend. It is simply a call to engage and research the situation of your own environment and take active part in the community's life. Finally, it is simply a extremist call to all sexes to fight together against both sexist and class and racial oppression.
[1] bell hooks, Feminist theory. From Margin to Center, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Krytyczny Polityczny 2022, pp. 53-54.
[2] Ibid. p. 57.
[3] Ibid. p. 68.
[4] Vide ibid. p. 74.
[5] Ibid. p. 92.
[6] Vide ibid. 123.
