FEMINISM IS FOR EVERYBODY: Passionate Politics

Product Information

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).

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? 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. 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.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." That being said, the author rarely mentions important feminists or other texts in general. She does something else instead. Can you guess what? Right at the beginning the author states that the book's goal is to provide an accessible "guide" to feminism for all. 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. 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.

Namun, sayangnya buku ini masih penuh dengan jargon-jargon yang seringnya juga repetitif hingga seperti kehilangan maknanya. 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.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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

hooks covers so much ground, so many facets of feminism in this work. From what consciousness raising is, to reproductive rights, to the impact of beauty standards, race and gender, classism, parenting, hetero and LGB relationships... Feminism is about love, and more, it's about freedom for men and women, to get away from the toxic societal models that are literally killing us. Kalimat tersebut menciptakan miskonsepsi bahwa seksualitas bisa dipilih dan seksualitas hanya terdiri dari dua spekrum: straight dan suka sesama jenis. 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.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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. Tujuan dasar feminisme visioner adalah menciptakan strategi-strategi untuk mengubah nasib semua perempuan dan meningkatkan kekuatan pribadi mereka." (hlm. 152) 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. 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.

Books

Honestly, I could go on for quite a while here pointing out the inaccurate, offensive and nonsensical bits, but I won't. 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. 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. 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.