| Title | : | Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0896086283 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780896086289 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 123 |
| Publication | : | First published October 1, 2000 |
Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics Reviews
-
i kind of live-blogged this book while i was re-reading it. yes, i originally read it shortly after it was released, because i loved bell hooks back then & felt she could do no wrong as a feminist theorist. this book was my first hint that she can do some pretty serious wrong. in the decade since, her writing has gone steadily downhill & is currently almost completely unreadable, incoherent, hippie weirdness. there are little hints of the man-pandering mega-christian hooks was to become here, but my bigger issue with this book is that 1) the book, despite its brevity, veers wildly away from its own stated thesis to act as a basic introductory primer for people reluctant to align themselves with the feminist movement, & 2) the book instead functions as a repository for hooks's own myriad opinions about what feminism really is & how contentious inter-movement arguments should have shaken out. as such, it is riddled with opinion disguised as fact & questionable arguments built on an ever-shifting bedrock of historical inaccuracy concerning the formations, goals, & fractures within the second wave feminist movement. because there are no citations, footnotes, or leads to supplementary reading about the many, many issues that hooks touches upon in her shallow, four-page chapters, a beginning feminist reader can only assume that hooks's assertions are accurate & true, because they are presented to be so. hooks positions herself as the leading authority on every issue she writes about (in all of her books), & in this one, she writes about topics that she has absolutely zero personal experience with & her expert tone grates.
i remembered disliking this book quite a bit when i first read it ten years ago. but because i still respected hooks as a theorist & a writer then, i charitably assumed that the problem was the structure--that hooks just wasn't cut out to with elementary introductory primers. she has historically shone as a thinker when writing about the intersections between race & feminism, & her writing on this topic has not always been simple & easy to digest. so i thought perhaps having to wander so far into a different territory necessitating a radically different authorial voice, hooks struggled.
i re-read it this past week for a feminist book club i recently joined, & i discovered that the real problem is that this book fucking sucks. in one of the earliest chapters, hooks shares her perspective that to be anti-choice is to be anti-feminist--that no person can be feminist if they don't respect a woman's right to bodily autonomy in the form of supporting her right to choose abortion. fair enough. then hooks goes on to elaborate that she is personally very opposed to abortion for herself, although she has never been faced with an unintended pregnancy & has not had to actually make the choice. FASCINATING. except not. this is anecdata & it has no place in a book that purports to be an objective primer on feminist issues. this book is not billed as a memoir; therefore, i do not care about hook's hypothetical personal stance on abortion. she goes on to explain that she has had many friends over the years who were reluctant to take birth control lest men find them slutty. rather than interrogating how a patriarchal culture that is hellbent on controlling women's sexualities might be playing a role in encouraging otherwise intelligent women to have sex with men who would classify them as "slutty" for making proactive decisions about their family planning options, hooks instead exorciates these women for behaving irresponsibly & seeking repeat abortions after becoming pregnant. she claims that medical science has taught us that repeat abortions are known to cause health problems.
this is where the book lost me. repeat abortions do not in fact cause any health problems. there is some question of whether repeated dilation of the cervix can cause issues like cervical softening or perhaps scarring in extreme cases. but the manifestations of these issues with repeat abortions obviously pale in comparison to the health risks & long-term health impact of bearing repeat babies. & the advent of earlier pregnancy detection & greater abortion access means that women are able to seek abortions earlier in their pregnancies, when less cervical dilation is necessary to complete the procedure.
anti-choice advocates, like the ones that hooks condemns as being "anti-woman, & therefore anti-feminist" have been making a lot of in-roads in trying to convince women that they may suffer long-term negative helth effects from having abortions. they have created the false psychological condition known as "post-abortion stress syndrome" (rightfully unrecognized by psychological authorities) & have falsely linked abortion to breast cancer & infertility. these are all scare tactics designed to intimidate women out of pursuing abortion. there is no legitimate medical evidence to support them. it is sad & enraging to see hooks repeat these myths, especially in a book aimed primarily at young or otherwise inexperienced-in-feminism people who may not be privvy to feminist attempts at countering these lies.
i had a LOT of other similar criticisms of the book. hooks suggests that wealthy feminists & their male allies should pool their financial resources to open low-income housing co-ops & co-operative feminist elementary schools. she does not address the fact that funding public educations & low-income housing is ostensibly the job of the government, & that feminists could/should also pressure the government to meet that responsibility. she suggests that consciousness raising groups, in which women in community with one another (neighbors, co-workers, friends) gather together to discuss the issues facing their gender & strategies for integrating feminist practice into their everyday lives should make a comeback. fair enough, but she suggests that CR groups be run like alcoholics anonymous meetings. she does not explain why a feminist discussion group should be structured like a support network for recovering addicts. are feminists in recovery from an addiction to patriarchy?
the chapter on feminist parenting pretty much didn't address parenting at all. instead, it functioned as a six-page screed in which hooks congratulated herself for apparently being the only feminist around willing to address the seriousness of child abuse, & to call out female abusers. knowing something about hooks's personal history as a child abused at the hands of her mother, i could only assume that an autobiographical conceit was at work, because hooks is in no way "one of the only" feminists concerned about child abuse or willing to acknowledge the realities of female abusers. hooks offered no practical tips whatsoever for how a feminist might integrate her political beliefs into her parenting--which is unsurprising, as hooks is not a mother & has no personal experience in this area. but then why address it at all? or why address it without doing outside research in order to flesh out the chapter? there are thousands upon thousands of feminist mothers who probably would have been happy to talk with hooks about their issues & strategies.
this is one example among many that makes plain the fact that hooks wrote the book with no research, completely off the cuff, in order to meet a deadline. she regularly quotes her own previously published books as sources--& they are almost the only sources in the book. there is no list of citations or recommended further reading in the back of the book. to hear hooks tell it, she is practically the only feminist who has been publishing on the topics the book covers, & her books are the best place to turn for further reading. having read pretty much the entire hooks ouvre, i can say that they vary wildly in quality, often use other hooks books as citations & theoretical examples, & often function as a way for hooks to grind an axe in argument with other prominent feminist writers--generally without acknowledging that that is what she is doing. she subjectively encapsulates their arguments & generally does not even mention their names.
in the chapter on female sexuality, hooks spills much ink bemoaning the fact that sex wars of the 1980s "tore apart the feminist movement". she sums up some of the more provocative theories & assertions of radical feminists like andrea dworkin (including her claim that in a patriarchal society, all intercourse between men & women is rape) & then explains why these theories are wrong & offensive to feminist practice. but at no point does she actually say, "this is my opinionated response to the writings of andrea dworkin." to do so, she would have to acknowledge that her theories are opinions rather than facts, & she would be giving a confused reader a name to pursue in doing independent outside research. i knew what hooks was talking about because i have been self-educating in feminist theory for twenty years & have read dworkin's books. but the intended audience for this book is not someone like me. it is a person who is brand-new to feminism & unfamiliar with the big arguments & contentious opinions that have impacted the history of the movement. by presenting her opinions as facts & never naming the theorists she is covertly arguing against, hooks seeks to indoctrinate these uninformed readers into her own school of thought from the outset. it so happens that i do not agree with many of dworkin's theories around sex & sexuality--but it's not right for hooks to mischaracterize them (& she does) in such a sneaky, manipulative manner.
i could go on about this for days, but suffice to say, this book is a tremendous disappointment to anyone who comes to feminism hoping to pursue meaningful independent thinking & critical reading skills. hooks shuts down all such possibilities & is obsessed with the opinions one must hold in order to be a "real feminist" she is equally obsessed & tormented by the thought that a feminist could potentially get more media attention that she gets. every chapter contains a snide aside about how people who do not share hooks's viewpoint about one topic or another "got all the media attention & became the face of the movement". hooks seems to be strangely unaware that she is one of the most famous feminist voices in the world & has been for at least twenty years. hooks is routinely catty & competitive with other feminists & particularly with women that she claims are not feminists at all. in the chapter on beauty, she complains that older unpartnered women are now having to "compete for male attention with younger women who are not & never will be feminists." no one has to "compete for male attention". isn't part of feminism eschewing the NEED for male attention? & even if a woman does choose to "compete," can't she do so in a way that doesn't malign women that she assumes are not sympathetic to feminism (because hooks of course has no way of knowing which women consider themselves feminists & which ones do not; though she seems to assume that any woman who is pretty & wears make-up & dresses in a feminine way & dares to flirt with a man hooks wants for herself must not be a feminist). she suggests that lesbians choose to be lesbians, which flies in the face of even the most staid & mainstream gay rights theory. she says that prostitutes are kidding themselves if they think they can prostitute their bodies & maintain sexual agency in their intimate personal relationships (which is about one step away from saying, "you can't rape a hooker"). she essentially calls studies that investigate the impact of patriarchy on the self-esteem of young girls sexist against boys, which is crazy. she even goes so far as to suggest that a renewed respect for the medical value of breastfeeding is sexist, because it shoulders women with more of the burden of feeding a baby. she suggests that a conspiracy is afoot, because the popularity of formula had been experiencing an upward swing until women's liberation started making some headway, & suddenly breastfeeding came back into vogue. she does not stop to consider that perhaps a renewed interest in breastfeeding was in fact a product of women's liberation--that women don't need to be sold an artifical product yoking them to capitalist consumer culture from the moment their babies are born when their bodies can produce a superior product for free.
i could go on & on! there was not a single chapter in this book that did not contain something factually inaccurate, bizarre, or offensive. please don't give this book to your newly-minted feminist friends! i don't know what to suggest instead, but there has GOT to be something better! -
Not until recently had I emerged out of the rock I was living under and located the
@everydaysexism twitter account. Keeping an eye on their retweets for a little less than two weeks enabled me to discover that women are not only forced to endure the lecherous male gaze (often called 'stare rape' these days) on public transportation, made the object of innuendo-laced, denigrating remarks since puberty but also masturbated at in public without their consent (not even women over 60 had been spared) . How blissfully ignorant I was of this last facet of everyday sexual harassment! I went on a kind of mad rampage immediately, flooding my timeline with a deluge of tweets on the subject, appealing to more of my followers to follow the everyday sexism account. A day later when I had checked back in eagerly in the hopes of noticing any visible change - NOTHING. Not even one person among my followers (I have nearly 1600 which maybe just a handful but it's not a very teeny number either) had honored my request apart from the 3 who were already following them - all of them women or women's issues related accounts yes (Zanna is one).
It was then that I realized, 'feminism' in the 21st century is actually like a hip, new item of home decor that you place on a wall cabinet among the other borrowed, trendy opinions you profess as personal philosophy, then forget about. Whenever some horrendous instance of brutality against a woman makes the morning news headlines, everyone's 'tch-tch-ing' fake concern for civilization resurfaces, spills over into the realm of their office lunch hour debates and after a while dies a natural death. Then they go back to the comfort of their tweleb status by posting the same old 'jokes' about dumb blondes, unreasonable wives, sluts, 'cunts', boobs and what have you, each of which are guaranteed to get at least 20+ retweets.
Lulz just chill, we're all kidding here, getting our kicks out of reinforcing the same old stereotypes that have done considerable damage to society since the dawn of time. No harm done.
It is this same all-pervading reluctance of acknowledging the efficacy of a concept like feminism as a panacea for sexism, violence and all the other concomitant shit women face every single moment of their lives that forms the backbone of bell hooks's work.
She merely chooses to use 'white supremacist capitalist patriarchy' as a refrain so as to hammer this information into our brains. Yes the recurrence of this phrase gets dull after a while, yes it is somewhat annoying but no it is not irrelevant. Especially since bell hooks seems to support the branch of feminism which brings the concept of equality for everyone (including homosexuals) in all walks of life - sexual, economic, social and religious - under its envelope.
She summarizes the inception and journey of the feminist movement through the decades - how it made its first proper appearance (second wave) in the U.S. in the 60s with the waves of bra-burning (she is not against bra-burning btw), angry women who had major grievances against a domestic arrangement where they held little to no power, how initially they believed 'feminism to be the theory and lesbianism the practice', how it has undergone gradual improvement to evolve into the polished academic discipline that it is today, how it was seen as an anathema in the past and how it continues to face a steadily growing list of challenges - apathy of mass media being a major one. She deftly interweaves feminism with the idea of politics, class struggle, physical beauty, love, religion, marriage, reproductive rights, parenting, masculinity and race to present before us a realistic picture of what truly internalizing its precepts can mean for us and our future.
But all the conventionally known preachings of the book aside, she makes another very pertinent point about stripping the verbiage of jargon from all the academic work on feminism to make them more accessible to students and laymen alike, and working together to raise awareness of how feminism isn't inherently 'anti-men' or 'anti-religion' or even simply restricted to serving the interests of women in civilization, how feminism is for everybody."Today in academic circles much of the most celebrated feminist theory is written in a sophisticated jargon that only the well-educated can read. Most people in our society do not have a basic understanding of feminism; they cannot acquire that understanding from a wealth of diverse material, grade school-level primers, and so on, because this material does not exist. We must create it if we are to rebuild feminist movement that is truly for everyone."
To come to the negatives, there are almost none except the monotonous drone in which Hooks drives home her points which makes the reading experience little less than enjoyable, the drabness of her prose and the way her repeated references to her own writings reek of self-importance. And to further account for that missing star, I have this teeny niggling doubt about her defining acts of 'domestic violence', even those carried out by women against other women and children, as 'patriarchal violence'. She reckons some women have been so rigorously conditioned by the patriarchal world order based on principles of domination through violence and other acts of intimidation, that they re-enact the same in their daily lives while dealing with people inferior in status to themselves. Which I agree with but my limited knowledge of the world and its assorted contradictions tells me it's not just the men. Some primeval inclination towards violence and skewing the power balance in any relationship is embedded in the human psyche in general, irrespective of sex.
But that aside, the overarching message one gets from hooks's outlook is that the traditional notions of 'manhood' and 'masculinity' have to be flushed down the toilet for feminism to even have a chance at victory. And there's no second guessing it. -
I liked this book and would absolutely recommend it, but I think the title was misleading and it didn't serve hook's purpose, as I understood it. She calls for the creation of feminist children's books, door-to-door chats, accessible explanations of feminism to those for whom "feminism" is the other "f" word. This is just another example of the academization of feminism hooks critiques; Its language is not exactly easy to follow, it assumes sympathy to feminism from the first page, and relies on at least some prior knowledge. It's less of the introduction it frames itself as and more of a mid-level course (but an excellent one which continues to be relevant 12 years after publication, hello, birth control and abortion debate!). I'd have called it The Patriarchy Hurts Everybody, as that's the main (and totally valid!) argument she makes here. (Also: she straight up says you cannot be pro-life and a feminist, which I 100% agree with, but makes for a sloppy title.)
My other issues, from the petty to the more serious.
1: Who the hell proofread this and what did they have against commas?
2: I read the phrase "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" so many times that it stopped having meaning. (Also: this is what I mean about the language not being the most accessible).
3: The book makes some very excellent points about internalized misogyny manifesting in mother to child violence and abuse, which I honestly hadn't thought of before, and does mention that some men find themselves experiencing domestic violence, not as the abuser but as the abused, but seems to ignore homophobia and the myriad of violence it carries with it, for men and women, as an aspect of the sexism entrenched within our society. Seemed like kind of a gaping omission.
4: Speaking of gaping omissions, there was not a single mention of trans* women (or men). This was disappointing, but honestly not shocking. Trans* women may not have the all of the exact same concerns as cis women (mostly when it comes to abortions and contraceptives to prevent pregnancy) but this doesn't mean they aren't women just the same and shouldn't be part of the "everybody" in the title. I wasn't surprised to see trans* women left out, but it does speak to one of hooks' central themes: that feminist women too often get stuck in the constraints of race, class, sexuality, political affiliation education level, and nationality and we need to look beyond them in order to attain true "sisterhood". I just wish she'd included sex/gender identity in that list as well.
5: I was actually deeply distressed by the amount of times she made the connection between lesbianism (and to a lesser extent, bisexuality) and the notion of choice. It came up so often that it can't have been a misunderstanding on my part. I sincerely hope what she meant was more along the lines of "the choice to live as an out lesbian/bisexual woman and to embrace that side of oneself" and not "the choice to BE a lesbian/bisexual woman". Though she only explicitly states this version once (page 88 "choosing bisexual practice"), every other mention of sexuality and choice seems to frame queerness as an active decision. Just in case this is any way unclear: coming out of the closet is (usually and ideally) a choice. The way in which you present (whether or not you can "pass") is also, usually, a choice. Being in the closet in the first place? Is not. This aspect of the book left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth and is the reason I can't give it more than 3 stars.
Despite my issues with Feminism is for Everybody I still wholeheartedly agree, am still proud to call myself a feminist, and greatly enjoyed reading something academic in nature after nearly 2 years out of college. It's been a while since I've read anything which made me think the way this did, and I missed engaging with texts. -
Amei fazer essa leitura e discutir semanalmente com amigas. Foi uma experiência incrível.
Já quero reler daqui alguns anos. -
Me encantó este libro, porque me parece que la visión desde la cual habla bell hooks, una mujer afroamericana, se refleja mucho en las diferentes situaciones que pueden vivir las mujeres que vienen de distintos entornos en Latinoamérica. Algunas tienen más privilegio, mientras otras tienen trabajos mal remunerados, y van quedando al margen. Toca este tema, y como es importante la solidaridad entre mujeres no solo en el hablar de feminismo, y como hay algunos temas que si son ineludibles en el feminismo, como el derecho al aborto, a la educación, etc.
Una cosa que me parece importante es que habla sobre la cultura de la dominación, cómo muchas relaciones se construyen desde ahí, y lo importante que es cambiar esta dinámica. Me gusta cuando habla sobre masculinidad positivamente, cómo los hombres necesitan ser aliados del feminismo, y que incluso, la idea de que el feminismo es anti-hombres no solo es errónea, sino que ha perjudicado mucho al feminismo. Lo recomiendo mucho, es el primer libro que leo de bell hooks, nombre increíble, y espero conseguir más. -
Hmmm. I'm currently reading another book of hooks' (
The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love) and it made me realise that I never properly reviewed this one. And for good reason. It pretty much sucks. But hooks is such an important feminist academic and since she died last year, I didn't wanna be the asshole to write a rant review for one of her most famous books. Well, the time has finally come... (nah, just kidding, I will – of course – be respectful but I really have to say that I didn't enjoy this book and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone).
hooks wrote Feminism Is For Everybody as a short, accessible introduction to feminist theory, designed to be read by all genders this book wants to provide both a primer to the question 'what is feminism?' and an argument for the enduring importance of the feminist movement today.
I'm sorry to say it but I don't think that hooks accomplished what she set out to do. Sure, Feminism Is For Everybody is divided into different chapters that are supposed to deal with feminism's most important themes and concerns (e.g. 'working women', 'masculinity', 'lesbians and feminism', 'reproductive rights' etc.), but for some weird reason, instead of giving a survey on these topics and concepts, hooks is pretty much preoccupied with her own opinion as opposed to presenting facts or research. She looks at the topics of reproductive rights, sexual violence, race, class and work solely through her subjective lens, often going on meaningless tirades and rants. It was pretty fucking weird to read.
Every chapter contained some snide asides or bitter remarks on people hooks claims aren't "real feminists", anyone who doesn't align with hooks' own personal opinion was sidelined. She often bemoaned the fact that these fake feminist women are often the ones who get the media attention and become the face of the movement, like, honey??? are you aware that you are one of the most famous feminists in the world??? Why are you so bitter? It was hella weird and unprofessional, and not the right place for a book that claims to be a primer for basic feminist theory.
On top of that, I have some major issues with hooks' academic approach. The entire book has no citations, footnotes, or leads to secondary reading about the many topics hooks touches upon. As a person who's new to feminism (maybe even reluctant about it) – hooks' intended audience for the book – one can only assume that hooks' assertions are factual, but there's no way to prove it. hooks positions herself as the leading authority on every issue she writes about, which is why the only citations you will find are from her own previous work. This is actually bogus. How the hell is that okay? hooks continuously presents her own opinion as fact, no matter how questionable or historically inaccurate, and it's driving me insane.
For instance, in the chapter on reproductive rights, hooks states that to be anti-choice is to be anti-feminist. So far, so good. But then she goes on and on about how she is personally opposed to abortion. Why? Why is that important in a book that is NOT hooks' memoir or diary, but claims to be an introduction to feminist theory. hooks own stance on abortion is irrelevant and shouldn't have been elaborated upon. Especially not when she spews nonsense about repeat abortions causing health problems etc. Or the chapter on radical lesbians, where she claims that some women "chose" bisexuality, as if a person can choose their own sexuality.
Feminism Is For Everybody is just a weird book. Its title should've been "Feminism Is For bell hooks" because for some fucking reason, she always made it about herself. Her tone throughout the book is pretty self-congratulatory and it's just really weird and uncomfortable. She comes across as if she thought that she was the only proper feminist who got it – and everyone else is just fake and not daring and real enough to address important feminist issues like she does. Cry me a river, chile. I'm out. -
I read this for my Intro to Gender and Women's studies course and I absolutely loved it.
It's the perfect place to start if you're interested in diving into feminist studies or even if you're already well versed in the subject. It really is for EVERYBODY (pun very much intended). -
Tough book to rate. Take the first and last chapter, and you have an incredibly well written book that perfectly sums up feminism, where it's been, where it lacks, and where it could go. Feminism in theory is about respect, about choice, about re-evaluating beliefs and including and affirming everyone. 5-star all the way.
The hundred pages in between are full of humble bragging (the only time she doesn't use generalizations is to either slam a particular target or quote her own books), lamenting the ineffectiveness of the movement and Hooks' personal disillusionment with it, and endless bitter screeds against the "privileged-class, affluent highly-educated white women" who in her opinion co-opted and destroyed the movement that only Hooks is in the best position to set straight. "White supremacist capitalist patriarchy" is another phrase that makes a regular appearance. With all of that on display, it's hard to know whether to renounce feminism (in favor of "humanism" perhaps?) or continue working toward greater equality for all under its name.
I would never recommend it as an introduction. No one barely becoming interested wants to know only why feminism failed or who broke it, when so many would dispute that it even was diminished. This book would turn off any newcomer.
Hooks has a particular habit of denouncing what she unconsciously affirms: Denouncing the retreat of feminism into academic jargon, she uses "patriarchy" constantly without actually defining it, along with "hegemony," "pedagogy" and so on. Denouncing classism while basically engaging in class warfare. It's a university-level book, and deeply fails at its stated goal of being the pamphlet that anyone could be handed to quickly get an overview of why feminism is important, what its loftiest ideals are, and what gains have been made in its name.
As long as it is, much more research should have gone into the book; it should have relied far less on the crutch of Hooks' own experience, and more on quotes from other people. It seems as if this entire book was banged out in her study one afternoon, presenting the entire rest of the movement as nameless and faceless groups who all fit into one of several molds. (The early "radical" movement, the later "classist white-supremacist" movement, or the splintered "male hating" movement.) This book would make it appear that Hooks is the only person in all of feminism who preaches love, inclusion, and education for all.
Getting specific: It's ludicrous that back to back chapters on nearly the same topic could be so different, such as 16 & 17; both are about sexual politics, but 17 is well thought out and well written with a powerful message from the beginning, while 16 is a bitter, meandering mess focused on how feminist bigotry helped turned back the clock on sexual rights. Oddly, all of the best points of that one were made in the last page: We are all too human and can bend our convictions in the face of intense stress, and that sexual freedom isn't about choosing a different path, but about being able to choose any path we desire.
I almost wonder whether the best parts were written by one person, and the rest fleshed out by someone else. But is the worst the ghostwriter, or the best? -
Dado que el feminismo es un movimiento que pretende acabar con el sexismo, la dominación y la opresión sexista, una lucha que se esfuerza por acabar con la discriminación de género y crear igualdad, es de por sí un movimiento radical [...] Y como lo radical se invisibiliza en nuestro entorno, debemos hacer todo lo posible para sacarlo a la luz y darlo a conocer.
Definitivamente un buen libro para adentrarse a la teoría y política feminista. El lenguaje es de fácil comprensión y abarca de manera completa y amena temas fundamentales del movimiento desde la perspectiva de bell hooks, emblemática feminista radical. -
Relegate ad un cassetto il rinomato "Dovremmo essere tutti femministi" di Adichie e i pamphlet nostrani di Murgia: il vademecum da regalare all* neofemminist* è questo.
C'è dentro tutto: la storia del movimento, i suoi ideali, le sue guerre intestine e persino i suoi controsensi. Soprattutto, però, il conforto e la speranza, particolarmente apprezzati, io credo, in questi nuovi tempi di guerra.
Scritto in modo chiaro e comprensibile - aspetto programmatico della produzione di bell hooks, insegnante prima che attivista, che me la fa amare visceralmente -, tocca tutti i temi caldi del femminismo intersezionale senza vacillare mai per timore o parsimonia. È un libriccino coraggiosamente belligerante e rincuorante.
Ci troverete, rivelata in modo innocuo, la definizione di ogni vostro dolore la cui causa va ricondotta al patriarcato.
[Per me è stato questo: "La maschilità patriarcale incoraggia gli uomini a essere patologicamente narcisisti, infantili e psicologicamente dipendenti dai privilegi concessi loro per il semplice fatto di essere nati maschi"]
Forse un po' anche per le dimensioni di questo volumetto, quasi un breviario ateo di preghiera, mi è venuta voglia di comprarlo in decine di copie da regalare.
Credo davvero che andrebbe consegnato ai neo maggiorenni assieme alla Costituzione.
Penso che per me ne nascerà un progetto di lettura per il mese di marzo: ho bisogno di tornare alle mie autrici afroamericane preferite e di trovarne di nuove. -
Aku DNF buku ini dan memutuskan tidak melanjutkannya lagi. Ada 25 halaman lagi yang kupikir tidak akan kubaca karena sejujurnya ada hal yang sangat mengganjal buatku.
Pertama aku mau bahas faktor dari segi bahasa ya. Meskipun ini bukan alasanku DNF buku ini, tapi ini menjadi salah satu alasanku untuk memberikan rating rendah.
Buku ini diklaim bisa menjadi buku pegangan bagi orang-orang yang masih awam mengenai feminisme, dengan klaim bahwa buku-buku feminisme yang lain masih penuh dengan jargon yang kurang dimengerti oleh orang-orang yang masih awam mengenai feminisme.
Namun, sayangnya buku ini masih penuh dengan jargon-jargon yang seringnya juga repetitif hingga seperti kehilangan maknanya.
Aku pikir ini masalah terjemahannya, tapi ternyata beberapa pembaca yang membaca versi bahasa Inggrisnya juga mengeluhkan hal yang sama denganku.
Kedua, aku merasa buku ini terlalu dipenuhi dengan opini pribadi penulis dan 'self insert'. Kurang riset. Buku yang dijadikan rujukan pun malah buku lain yang juga ditulis oleh penulisnya, Bell Hooks dan hanya sedikit buku dari penulis lain.
Ketiga, hal yang menurutku fatal dan berulangkali terjadi di buku ini dan membuatku akhirnya memutuskan untuk tidak melanjutkan buku ini, Bell Hooks seolah menyatakan bahwa seksualitas bisa dipilih. Hal ini terlihat jelas pada essay Politik Seksual Feminis: Etika Kebebasan Bersama.
Yang paling fatal menurutku ada pada kalimat "Perempuan-perempuan heteroseksual yang memilih hubungan sesama jenis karena benar-benar merasa kecewa dengan laki-laki sekarang bergabung dengan para lesbian radikal."
Kalimat tersebut menciptakan miskonsepsi bahwa seksualitas bisa dipilih dan seksualitas hanya terdiri dari dua spekrum: straight dan suka sesama jenis.
Aku tidak merekomendasikan buku ini pada siapapun, terutama pemula. Sangat disayangkan, padahal beberapa essay cukup bagus. Ada essay yang membahas tentang ketimpangan kelas dan pentingnya untuk mencegah kekerasan terhadap anak-anak, baik yang dilakukan perempuan maupun laki-laki.
Rekomendasi dariku untuk buku dengan topik sejenis: Hood Feminism. Ditulis oleh Mikki Kendall, seorang perempuan kulit hitam, buku tersebut sangat komprehensif dalam memahami feminisme, membahas tak hanya kesetaraan gender, tetapi juga kemiskinan struktural, rasisme, privilege, ketimpangan kelas, masalah kelaparan, akses kesehatan dan tempat tinggal yang layak bagi masyarakat miskin dan ibu tunggal. Karena sesungguhnya, permasalahan tersebut masuk ke dalam ranah yang harus diperjuangkan oleh para feminis. Buku ini juga ditulis berdasarkan serangkaian riset mendalam. -
There's really not a lot I can add to the title. Feminism is for Everybody. This book is especially good for people who denounce feminism, or don't think we need to shout about it any more. It's the sort of book that should be on every school syllabus, to open discussions and make young people think about these issues. To realise that talking about feminism goes beyond wanting equal rights in the workplace. It's not a woman only book, it's not man hating, it's very intelligent, insightful and relevant. The only reason I haven't rated it five stars is because it's fifteen years old and while most of it is still applicable today, there are obviously limitations in dealing with today's societal issues.
-
Review will come up soon - Till then check this passage out -
"We have not amassed enough testimony to let the world know the sexual pathologies and horrors women endured prior to the existence of dependable birth control. It evokes fear within me just to imagine a world where every time a female is sexual she risks being impregnated, to imagine a world where men want sex and women fear it. In such world a desiring woman might find the intersection of her desire and her fear. We have not amassed enough testimony telling us what women did to ward off male sexual advances, how they coped with ongoing marital rape, how they coped with risking death to deal with unwanted pregnancies. We do know that the world of female sexuality was forever changed by the coming of feminist sexual revolution."
AND this -
"Often I tell the story of being at a fancy dinner party where a woman is describing the way she disciplines her young son by pinching him hard, clamping down on his little flesh for as long as it takes to control him. And how everyone applauded her willingness to be a disciplinarian. I shared the awareness that her behavior was abusive, that she was potentially planting the seeds for this male child to grow up and be abusive to women. Significantly, I told the audience of listeners that if we had heard a man telling us how he just clamps down on a woman’s flesh, pinching her hard to control her behavior it would have been immediately acknowledged as abusive. Yet when a child is being hurt this form of negative domination is condoned. This is not an isolated incident - much more severe violence against children is enacted daily by mothers and fathers."
AND AND AND THIS ---
"Problematically, for the most part feminist thinkers have never wanted to call attention to the reality that women are often the primary culprits in everyday violence against children simply because they are the primary parental caregivers. While it was crucial and revolutionary that feminist movement called attention to the fact that male domination in the home often creates an autocracy where men sexually abuse children, the fact is that masses of children are daily abused verbally and physically by women and men. Maternal sadism often leads women to emotionally abuse children, and feminist theory has not yet offered both feminist critique and feminist intervention when the issue is adult female violence against children. In a culture of domination where children have no civil rights, those who are powerful, adult males and females, can exert autocratic rule of children. All the medical facts show that children are violently abused daily in this society. Much of that abuse is life threatening. Many children die. Women perpetuate this violence as much as men if not more. A serious gap in feminist thinking and practice has been the refusal of the movement to confront head-on adult female violence against children. Emphasizing male domination makes it easy for women, including feminist thinkers, to ignore the ways women abuse children."
A thought-provoking and lucid guide to intersectional feminism that stresses on male allies and is to a large extent - male-centric, in terms of toxicity faced by men trapped in patriarchy. -
I'm very glad I read this book. The intersectional discussion of feminism was really interesting and made a lot of sense. There's a big emphasis on intersectionality in feminism nowadays, which I appreciate and agree with, but it's been a little difficult for me to envision how everything would work together in terms of policy and activism. This book was so helpful in this regard, and in that sense it was very valuable to me. I also really appreciated the more personal bits where bell hooks talked about her own life and how she came to be a feminist.
However, I need to dock one star because I'm not really sure if bell hooks accomplished what she set out to do with Feminism Is for Everybody. In the introduction, she states that people are always coming up to her and asking questions about what feminism is and why they should believe in it, and she wrote this book as something that could be handed to "newbies" in response to such queries. But I'm not sure the book is ideal for that purpose. First off, hooks writes as if the reader already has a basic understanding of feminism—terms like "the feminization of poverty," for example, go unexplained. Second of all, I'm sorry to say that the writing is somewhat dull—which explains why it took me nearly a month to read 130 pages. I worry that it might not be engaging enough to really pull in the uninitiated.
I might still recommend this book to someone new to feminism, but I would probably suggest pairing it with something like Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's We Should All Be Feminists for some more basic background. -
I read this because I'd like to be better read on feminist theory and wanted a quick/easy "refresher." Also, I recall reading Hooks in a collection of feminist essays way back in 1999 or so and appreciating her particular perspective. I can't now recall what the title of the book was (I'll need to ask the friend who lent it to me) or even what the essay was about, but I do know that Hooks is an instrumental figure in bringing race and class into the discussion and has rightly criticized white middle-upper class feminists for avoiding these issues. So I appreciate her perspective and thought I would read this "primer," which another friend thought highly of.
Before I get into the issue of whether Hooks fulfills her stated purpose, I'd like to say that there is plenty she says and ideas thrown out that make this book worth the read.
Hooks is precise with her language and inventive, cutting to the heart of the issues while offering some food for thought. I already knew that she tries to go beyond the basic analysis of "patriarchy" and more broadly contend with what she labels "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" (say that five times fast). An unwieldy phrase, to be sure, but a better description of how these power structures intersect. She also hits on a great definition of feminism as "a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." This is deceptively simple and concise, brilliant because it totally bypasses issues relating to the common definitions involving equality, rights, and what all that can mean, and gets right to the heart of what feminism's all about.
Hooks is also able to cover the wide range of issues that feminism addresses and continually clarify how these issues are addressed. For instance, she stresses the importance of safe, readily available birth control and its relation to women's freedoms. She discusses how gender roles limit these freedoms, how raised consciousness can give women more personal power, and the importance of self-esteem. Often, she tries to contextualize the rhetoric and theory with her own experiences in feminism and history of the movement as a whole. Some of this helps put feminism into perspective and understand its imperfections, that all these things are a work in progress, and there's still lots of work to be done. Clearly, many feminists (or those cautiously flirting with feminism) will find much of the book inspiring.
Where Hooks often falters, however, is when she goes beyond simply rhetoric or calls to action and gets into the building of her case. A few other reviews have noted most of these flaws, and I can only reiterate what they've said. While she had most facts straight, she recites some offhandedly with no effort to present facts or add much needed nuance. The remark on "all medical facts" suggesting that all children suffer violence is given no qualification whatsoever and is just...befuddling. The portion on reproductive rights is rife with misinformation, which even in the late 90s was just wrong.
Also, while I appreciate the personal and historical context, one has the feeling she is often airing personal complaints against the wrong version of feminism taking over. Her complaints about feminism are kinda hard to cover in a brief review. She makes some interesting points, but still seems to harbor a lot of resentment toward those feminists who have it all wrong (according to her). This would be the substance of an interesting essay, and her personal experiences within feminism would make for an interesting memoir. But then that brings us to the issue of, is this really the right context?
In the introduction, she presents this book ostensibly as a primer, as a means for those who know less about feminism, who are interested but full of misconceptions, can understand what it's all about and develop some understanding of theory without all the academic jargon. The case she makes for this is compelling, and I definitely see the need for that book. Even though the internet has made this information widely available, there's still need to put it in a contained, succinct format like a short book.
The problem is, I'm not sure an absolute beginner or someone harboring negative assumptions about feminism is going to get this book. For one thing, they're not going to be interested in the in-fighting that goes on in pretty much every political/social movement. That's an interesting subject on its own, but it goes against the stated goals of the book and distracts from the main points. Beyond this, Hooks can't really escape the prison of jargon and still falls back on terms like "patriarchy," which automatically causes lots of folks to recoil into defense mode. "What patriarchy? There is no patriarchy. Women can vote, they can work, they can run for public office. I'm a man, and I don't get any special benefits for that, I keep struggling, etc etc." If you've gotten into internet arguments on this subject, you know how it goes. Now, her particular broad term for this network of power hierarchies is meant to combat some of these issues, but it's still too jargon-y for most of your casual, less academic or politically conscious readers.
A true primer on feminism would realistically start with the long history of the movement, nothing too detailed, but enough to give a basis for how things developed to the point of the 60s-70s women's liberation movement. A true primer would outline in plain terms what patriarchy means in a feminist context. It would try to counter common assumptions about sex/gender with facts, rather than simply rhetoric. Of course, this is a political theory book in plain language, meant to rally and inspire, but if we're talking about handing books out to someone parroting the same assumptions, it's important to address those assumptions head-on.
Hooks is able to understand that a simple, conversational, even quasi-folksy tone is important here, but she's never able to truly work at the level of her intended reader and as such I'm not sure I could recommend this as a basic primer. Only if the intended reader were comfortable with and understood some of the terminology and weren't automatically in defense/attack mode at some of the rhetoric. The fact that she does rely too much on her own previous works and very little other feminist books (there were/are plenty of popular examples she ignores) isn't going to endear some readers. And the lack of evidence and reliance on personal slant on issues is going to annoy a bunch of other readers too.
As I said, I think the ideal audience here is going to be those already sympathetic and familiar with the language, who already understand and agree with the basic points and want to better consider and articulate them to others. That's a bit of a problem, I think, as it's more going to confirm one's views than challenge or deeply inform, but this kind of text does serve a valuable political function. However noble the aims of this book, however many good point Hooks make, it doesn't quite measure up to its goals and ultimately disappoints. -
Butuh beberapa waktu untuk menyelesaikan buku 160 halaman ini. Selain begitu serius membicarakan paham sosialisme yang satu ini, buku ini menjelaskan perintilan-perintilan kecil tentang pemikiran dan praktik feminisme. Dengan begitu, pembaca seakan-akan diajak menguliti feminisme.
Setidaknya sudah tiga buku dengan buku ini yang kubaca perihal perempuan dan feminisme. Semakin ke sini, aku semakin sepakat dengan pemikiran-pemikiran feminisme yang ternyata salah-kaprah disampaikan oleh media massa sehingga membuat orang awam melipir lebih jauh dari konsepsi dasar feminisme.
Ada hampir 4 halaman block note intisari yang kucatat dari buku ini. Berbagai hal diperbincangkan dan disampaikan: mulai dari hak-hak reproduksi, perihal pekerjaan, perihal kekerasan dan anak-anak, kebebasan seksual, cinta, hingga agama.
Hematnya, feminisme ada untuk membuka dan menawarkan opsi kepada perempuan dengan upaya-upaya mengakhiri seksisme, diskriminasi gender, dan menciptakan kesetaraan.
Buku ditutup dengan bab feminisme visioner yang bisa dilakukan oleh semua orang termasuk laki-laki beserta langkah apa saja yang bisa dilakukan. Ajaibnya, buku yang ditulis sekitar 2 dekade lalu ini masih relevan hingga sekarang.
Aku tidak kaget bila ada yang memaktubkan buku ini sebagai kitab para feminis, terutama bagi mereka yang radikal. Dan simaklah pernyataan berikut."Tujuan dasar feminisme visioner adalah menciptakan strategi-strategi untuk mengubah nasib semua perempuan dan meningkatkan kekuatan pribadi mereka." (hlm. 152)
Selesai baca ini, aku ingin mengulik lebih jauh tentang feminisme terutama dalam konteks pemikiran dan praktiknya di Indonesia. Ada satu buku incaran yang sudah kucatat yang ditulis oleh seorang Indonesia.
Well, I think I'm on my way to be a feminist, as we all should be! -
'"Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." I love this definition...I love it because it so clearly states that the movement is not about being anti-male. It makes it clear that the problem is sexism. And that clarity helps us remember that all of us, female and male, have been socialized from birth on to accept sexist thought and action. As a consequence, females can be just as sexist as men. And while that does not excuse or justify male domination, it does mean that it would be naive and wrong-minded for feminist thinkers to see the movement as simplistically being for women against men. To end patriarchy (another way of naming the institutionalized sexism) we need to be clear that we are all participants in perpetuating sexism until we change our minds and hearts, until we let go of sexist thought and action and replace it with feminist thought and action."
"Feminist politics aims to end domination to free us to be who we are - to live lives where we love justice, where we can live in peace. Feminism is for everybody."
A great book which discusses what feminism is and what the common misunderstandings people have about it are. It is passionate, eye-opening, and to the point. Highly recommended for everyone. -
feminizm sadece kadınları ilgilendiren bir mesele olsaydı, inanın ataerkiyi bu kadar kızdırmazdı. sahnelenen her şeyi 'bizim eserimiz' şaşaasıyla göstermeleri, aman yerimizi kaptırmayalım'ın esas yüzü. bu sebeple altını oymaya çalıştıkları her yerde biz duruyoruz. bell hooks, feminizmin yalnızca elitist çevrelerde yayılmasını, kızkardeşlik adı altında radikalci/vizyoner/reformist feministlerin farkında olmadan (beyaz üstünlükçü kadınların çıkarları doğrultusunda) ataerkiye nasıl hizmet ettiklerini, anti-feminist oluşumlar insanları her kanaldan etkilemeye çalışırken, tüm bunlara karşılık; elimizde, bu mücadelenin ne olduğunu, dahası ne olmadığını herkese basitçe anlatacak bir argüman olmayışını, yani bizleri, bunu yaratmadığımız gerçeğiyle yüzleştiriyor. bahsettiği misyonu, kitabı yazarak tamamlayan bir iş çıkarmış. ve evet, feminizm herkes içindir, çünkü temelinde yatan toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğiyle; hepimize, kendimizi olduğumuz gibi yaşama şansını verir.
-
كل المنخرطين في الحراك النسوي سيجدون أن كل كلمة في هذا الكتاب مألوفة، بيل هوكس التي رحلت عن عالمنا قبل يومين وهي ناشطة ومنظرة نسوية وأستاذة جامعية، كلماتها تنير طريق الحراك النسوي في كل العالم، ونظرياتها حول المساواة والعنف الأبوي الممنهج ضد النساء وتحليلها العميق يقدم الكثير من الحلول لكل المشاكل التي تتأتى من عدم المساواة والعنصرية والطبقية والاستغلال والاستعمار.
الراحة والخلود لك أما كلماتك سيتردد صداها طويلًا في الأذهان. -
Bell Hooks (I will not entertain her nor E. E. Cummings) attempted to make feminism a broader idea than simple female empowerment. To this end, issues of race and class (in that order too) were brought in to what might not be the foundational text of intersectionality, but certainly one of the seminal ones. Although jargon heavy, Hooks is accessible compared to other books and the brevity of this work suits its purpose well.
Where I stand unconvinced is the idea that feminism is for "everybody." No ideology has every answer and the attempt to apply it everywhere always fails. Where said ideology is weak is where its downfall occurs. In this case it is the inability of feminism to be resolved with class, likely because class politics is often the central concern of men. This in turn limits what intersectionality can do politically. At the same time, there is no accounting for feminism's weak points. The feminism of the variety championed by Hooks, which has since become ascendant, will have unintended negative consequences. The persistent failure of thinkers, be they communists, Randians, or feminists to accept limitations on their ideology or account for possible future failure is depressing, but it seems inevitable.
That said, Hooks is a good writer, and more honest and broad minded than many in her camp. I am impressed that her thoughts gained more widespread appeal than other thinkers, and we certainly are in a time of ascendance for feminism, Trump notwithstanding. For that reason I give Feminism is for Everybody a good rating, but so far my favorite feminist book remains the SCUM Manifesto. -
La política feminista es necesariamente radical
Este pequeñito gran libro logro darle un giro de 180º a lo que yo consideraba como feminismo, bell hooks (si, con minúscula) hace una revisión profunda del movimiento feminista en todos sus más importantes temas de abordaje como la violencia, las relaciones, la espiritualidad, etc. Rescata y aboga por un feminismo radical, como el único modo de realizar cambios sustanciales en las estructuras patriarcales, por su lado critica los movimientos reformistas debido a su carácter débil e incluso imitador del sistema opresor, de ese modo hace una constante critica a las mujeres blancas supremacistas que se han apoderado del feminismo como una causa que solo ellas pueden liderar, defendiendo intereses egoístas mientras invisibilizan a otras mujeres e incluso reproducen las mismas prácticas sexistas que en un principio defendían erradicar.
Defiende en cada punto la importancia de tomar en cuenta la interseccionalidad de la raza y la situación socioeconómica junto con el género, de lo contrario no se llegara a ningún lado, el patriarcado continuara fortalecido y el feminismo debilitado. Además hooks justifica porque El Feminismo es Para Todo el Mundo, porque no es como piensan muchos y lamentablemente algunas supuestas feministas, que es una confrontación de mujeres contra hombres pues eso solo reproduce la política patriarcal de divide y vencerás, porque los hombres también pueden ser aliados, ser feministas y defender la causa, ya que el patriarcado también les afecta, así como a los niños y los ancianos. “La seguridad y la continuidad de la vida en el planeta requiere que los hombres se hagan feministas.” hooks también remarca en la importancia de crear espacios feministas en la educación o en el hogar, en hacer del feminismo algo accesible a todos y no una cuestión elitista que solo ciertos intelectuales puedan entender.
Es un libro muy recomendable y con gusto espero leer algo mas de esta mujer. -
bell hooks desarrolla un discurso cercano, muy pegado a la oralidad, en el que de forma clara y directa analiza el tratamiento del movimiento feminista, desde los 60 hasta el año 2000, a algunas cuestiones clave: derechos reproductivos, violencia, raza, trabajo, sexualidad, belleza, clase, sororidad...
Critica duramente los desvíos del feminismo hacia un "estilo de vida" que no cuestiona las estructuras de poder, sino que busca para algunas mujeres privilegiadas mayores cuotas de libertad y acumulación de capital.
Una de las ideas en las que más insiste hooks es en la necesidad de que el feminismo, además de criticar las estructuras existentes, proponga alternativas vivibles, especialmente en cuestiones que atañen directamente a la intimidad como el amor y la sexualidad. -
This had some interesting parts, and filled in some gaps of the feminist movement's history for me, but it gets a low rating for one reason: it states its goal at the beginning - to be a primer on feminism accessible to all - and then fails miserably at it. I would never recommend this as a feminism primer to someone. It doesn't talk much about feminism or the need for it but rather dissects the in-fighting within the feminist movement. It's also extremely poorly written - too academic and with frequent poor grammar, to boot. It's frustrating to agree with most of the tenets stated in a book and still think it's awful.
-
"Elegir la política feminista es elegir el amor" Bell Hooks.
-
Introduction to intersectional feminist theory peppered with personal anecdotes.
“If any female feels she need anything beyond herself to legitimate and validate her existence, she is already giving away her power to be self-defining, her agency.”
"Today in academic circles much of the most celebrated feminist theory is written in a sophisticated jargon that only the well-educated can read. Most people in our society do not have a basic understanding of feminism; they cannot acquire that understanding from a wealth of diverse material, grade school-level primers, and so on, because this material does not exist. We must create it if we are to rebuild feminist movement that is truly for everyone." -
Δεν υπάρχει άλλη ψυχή να έχει επηρεάσει τόσο την ενήλικη σκέψη μου όσο η Μπελ Χουκς. Λείπει. Μου λείπει.
-
Right at the beginning the author states that the book's goal is to provide an accessible "guide" to feminism for all.
It is neither particularly accessible, nor does it really help as a guide. Thankfully, I know history fairly well, particularly the history of feminism, so I knew what the author was talking about in most cases, but for a person who does not know much history this book will be a torture. It is jumbled, inconsistent and badly written, but let me start at the beginning.
I have one major issue with this book - the complete lack of any sources. You'll find no footnotes, no citations in this book, nothing that would back up the claims that the author makes. Instead, the author uses horrible generalisations when it comes to women, to men, to society, just about anything. After the first two chapters I grew tired of marking the "many" and "most" that she used whenever she referred to men or women and what they feel/think.
When given a non-fictional text/book that does not provide the reader with data and secondary sources to back up it's claims I do not feel particularly tempted to believe anything that is written in the according text.
As a consequence, by not providing any material that would support her statements the author can (and does) disguise her personal opinions as facts a bit too often for my liking. She builds questionable arguments and throughout the book develops the problem of stating things that are historically inaccurate. As a scholar I find it unacceptable.
Let me give you an example from my life. From day 1 in university my peers and I heard one phrase over and over and over again - "If you make a general statement, a statement that refers to something historical, involves someone's opinion, etc. back it up with footnotes and citations." In my last paper I had exactly 117 footnotes and my paper was just 15 pages long.
Furthermore, the chapters are much too shallow, some are merely 4 pages long and do not explain anything. Instead, they dissects the issues within feminism, particularly the second-wave feminism at times creating the impression that there was no feminism and no feminist works of literature or movements before the 20th century. I assure you, there were. One of the oldest examples is perhaps
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. If you take into account that the author wanted this book to be somewhat like 'A handbook to feminism' you'll notice that something is definitely missing in this book. Like, the historical background as well as at least a bit of information on feminism in other countries apart from the US. The book makes no claims that it is just limited to feminism in America but still limits all the statements to America which I find far from ideal because of the historical background/accuracy. So there should have either been a statement right at the beginning that it would deal just with the feminism movement in the 20th century in the US or the author should have included a chapter on history and feminism in other countries.
That being said, the author rarely mentions important feminists or other texts in general. She does something else instead. Can you guess what?
She subtly brags by quoting her own books. The quotes aren't exactly good either, but the fact that the only texts she referred to were her own annoyed me.
If I had been a newcomer the aforementioned issues would have immediately turned me off and I'd have abandoned this book. As someone who is more familiar with feminism I finished it out of spite.
And I am not done yet.
The write style is awful. The sentences are sometimes pretty confusing because the author, apparently, was tempted to throw in as many pseudo-intellectual terms as she could. But even worse is the poor grammar and the problems with punctuation and believe me, if I notice poor punctuation and grammar it means something because I am not very good when it comes to punctuation myself.
The chapters that address (or rather should address) certain topics don't do it at all, instead the author complains about patriarchy, white privilege, classicism and how everyone criticises without providing solutions or seeing the whole picture...Well, dear author, you did exactly the same thing here.
Honestly, I could go on for quite a while here pointing out the inaccurate, offensive and nonsensical bits, but I won't.
All in all, I do not believe that the appropriate amount of research was done when the author wrote this book, the execution of it is horrendous and so is the writing. It is jumbled, generalising and self-promoting and I would not recommend it. -
En cuanto a por dónde empezar a leer libros feministas, es decir, de qué libros nutrirnos para tener una toma de conciencia feminista, “El feminismo es para todo el mundo” es una de las mejores opciones que vais a encontrar. Yo llego tarde a él, no lo conocía hace dos años cuando empecé a leer feminismos, y quizá por ese motivo a mí no me ha resultado un libro mágico y de descubrimiento. Sin embargo, sí es un libro mágico y maravilloso si acabas de empezar a leer feminismos, o has leído pocos, o no has leído desde la diversidad, y solo has leído feminismo blanco y europeo. «Antes de que las mujeres pudiéramos cambiar el patriarcado, teníamos que cambiarnos a nosotras mismas, teníamos que tomar conciencia.»
Hooks nos habla del sexismo, machismo, sororidad, racismo, lesbofobia, transfobia y lucha de clases dentro del propio feminismo. Es uno de los libros más libres y llenos de claridad que he leído. Y es que, como señala continuamente, primero tenemos que deconstruirnos nosotras para después poder destruir, juntas, el sistema patriarcal, racista, lesbófobo, tránsfobo y clasista, en el que las mujeres no se ayudan, se atacan. Creo que esto es algo bastante esencial y que sigue siendo necesario a estas alturas. Hasta que no aprendamos a que se tienen que atacar los discursos, no las personas. Hasta que no aprendamos a que todas tenemos los mismos derechos y todas tenemos una voz. Hasta que no aprendamos a que nuestras diferencias nos hacen más fuertes, no más débiles. Hasta entonces, habrá que seguir luchando no solo contra el sistema, también contra los discursos dentro del feminismo.
Os dejo con algo que he leído en el capítulo “Plenitud total. Lesbianismo y feminismo” y que me ha encantado. «Los medios de comunicación siempre han elegido a mujeres heterosexuales para representar lo que significa el movimiento feminista. Cuanto más glamurosa sea, más se puede utilizar su imagen para atraer a los hombres. (…) rara vez hacemos (las mujeres lesbianas) de la obtención de la aprobación masculina una prioridad en nuestras vidas. Por eso es por lo que somos una amenaza para el patriarcado.» -
Un livre facile à lire, plutôt optimiste, complet et synthétique. Je ne sais pas si c’est vraiment l’ouvrage idéal pour les hommes (qui sont la cible de l’autrice ici) tant la réflexivité sur le mouvement féministe prend une grande place. C’est utile mais peut-être pas nécessaire en premier lieu pour les hommes. J’ai aimé les définitions de la sororité politique, la place faite pour l’amour en général, et la perspective intersectionnelle. J’ai été plus qu’agacée par les multiples tacles adressés aux « femmes qui détestent les hommes », je pense qu’un ouvrage radical peut se passer de l’analyse très superficielle qu’elle fait de la misandrie. Certaines analyses aussi me semblent un peu datées, et c’était pas plus mal de pouvoir évaluer les progrès faits en 20 ans depuis la publication originale du livre. Autrement, un ouvrage encore d’actualité, qui fera une très bonne porte d’entrée dans un féminisme radical et révolutionnaire. À lire.
