Summary, part 3

Chapter 11: Ending Violence

“In a culture of domination, everyone is socialized to see violence as an acceptable means of social control” (p. 64).

In contemporary times, domestic violence is a much talked about issue and it is forgotten that it was the feminist movement that exposed the realities of it. “Patriarchal violence,” a term that encapsulates domestic violence committed by men and women, is based on the belief that it is acceptable for a more powerful individual to control others through coercive forces (p. 61). 

hooks prefers to use this term in place of “domestic violence” in her discussions since,  

“The term “patriarchal violence” is useful because unlike the more accepted phrase “domestic violence” it continually reminds the listener that violence in the home is connected to sexism and sexist thinking, to male domination. For too long the term domestic violence has been used as a “soft” term which suggests it emerges in an intimate context that is private and somehow less threatening, less brutal, than the violence that takes place outside the home.” (p. 61-2)

Reformist feminist thinkers still choose often to portray females as only victims. Yet, consider that since a huge majority of parents use some form of physical or verbal aggression against children and women are usually the primary caretakers, it can be ascertained that they use coercive force to maintain dominance. 

It would have been/will be harder for the public to dismiss patriarchal violence by seeing it as an ‘and-male agenda’ if all feminist thinkers place patriarchal violence perpetrated by women on an equal footing with male violence against women.

It is the innate sexist thinking of society that continues to support male domination and consequently, violence. As more men become unemployed or receive low wages and more women have begun working, some men feel that the use of violence is the only way they can establish and maintain power and dominance within the sexist sex-role hierarchy. 

As long as sexist thinking socializes boys to be “killers” ranging from media propaganda to indoctrinated soldiers under imperialism to maintain coercive power over nations, patriarchal violence against women and children will continue (p. 65). Since feminist thinking offers an alternative worldview, it is the responsibility of feminists to make it available to everyone.

Chapter 12: Feminist Masculinity

At its conception, women came into feminism angered by the men in their lives and used that anger as a catalyst for the movement. 

“As the movement progressed, as feminist thinking advanced, enlightened feminist activists saw that men were not the problem, that the problem was patriarchy, sexism, and male domination” (p. 67). 

This difficult ideological change required acknowledging the role of women in perpetuating and maintaining sexism and that the system would remain even if individual men were divested of patriarchal privilege.

In the portrayal of feminists as man-hating was the assumption that all feminists were lesbians. Appealing to homophobia, mass media intensified anti-feminist sentiment among men. Yet, from the onset, there was a small group of men who were allies. 

Anti-male factions within the feminist movement resented the presence of anti-sexist men because their presence served to counter the ‘all men are oppressors’ or ‘all men hate women’ narrative. These factions portrayed all men as the enemy to represent all women as victims. It deflected attention from the class privilege of these activists who refused to look at the economic and emotional ties that bind women to sexist men. 

In reaction to this negative representation of manhood, an anti-female men’s movement developed. The anti-male sentiment also allowed males to deflect from accountability for male domination. 

The feminist movement failed to gain traction with many since:

1. The theory did not effec­tively address what males might do to be antisexist; and

2. It also didn’t address what alternative masculinity might look like.

There is no body of feminist literature that addresses boys, giving them an alternative to developing an identity rooted in sexism. Consequently, now that the raising of boys is a part of public discourse, feminist perspectives are not a part of it. Hence, what was/is needed is, “a vision of masculinity where self-esteem and self-love of one’s unique being forms the basis of identity” (p. 70). 

For men to divest from patriarchal masculinity, we need to develop feminist masculinity. Since feminist thinking teaches justice and freedom in ways that foster and affirm life, “a feminist vision which embraces feminist masculinity, which loves boys and men and demands on their behalf every right that we desire for girls and women, can renew the American male” (p. 71).

Chapter 13: Feminist Parenting

Focus on children was a central component of the contemporary radical feminist movement since by raising children without sexism, women hoped to create a world without the need for an anti-sexist movement. 

Yet, initially, feminist attention was almost always focused on girl children, on attacking sexist biases and promoting alternative images, very rarely calling attention to the need to raise boys in an anti-sexist manner. One of the primary difficulties feminist thinkers faced when confronting sexism within families was that female parents were also transmitters of sexist thinking. Even a single mother can and does raise a patriarchal male.

Male children are abused for nonconformism to sexist masculinity, often shamed by sexist adults (particularly mothers) and other children. As a counter to this, hooks suggests that anti-sexist caregiving is feminism in action: “When feminist thinkers and activists provide children with educational arenas where anti-sexist biases are not the standards used to judge behavior, boys and girls are able to develop healthy self-esteem” (p. 75).

One of the most positive feminist interventions was to create greater cultural awareness of the need for men to equally parent and build better relationships with their children. Hence, our culture needs to have more open dialogue on:

1. feminist parenting;

2. practical ways of raising a child in an anti-sexist environment; and

3. the type of people the children who are raised in these homes become.

In the beginning of the movement, feminists were harsh critics of mothering, pitting the task against careers. Just when feminist thinkers had worked to create a more balanced portrait of mothering (as early as the 80s), patriarchal mainstream culture launched a vicious critique of single-parent, female-headed households. 

This is particularly debilitating since, in a culture that holds the two-parent patriarchal family in the highest esteem, children feel insecure when their family does not meet the standard. Hence, future feminists need to work harder to show parents how ending sexism positively changes family life. 

Chapter 14: Liberating Marriage and Partnership

At its peak, strengthened by the sexual liberation movement, the contemporary feminist movement harshly critiqued the institution of marriage, likening it to yet another form of sexual slavery. They called attention to the prevalence of marital rape while championing the sexual rights of women.

There were two types of mens’ reactions:

1. Those grateful to the movement for offering a liberatory sexual paradigm for females ensuring a more fulfilling sex life for themselves; and

2. Sexist men wanting to defuse the threat of masculine sexual competence by insisting that most feminists were lesbians or needed “a good fuck” (p. 80).

The critique of monogamy has been forgotten with the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, making it harder for female sexual promiscuity. Under an emphasis on patriarchal heterosexual monogamy, it is often harder for couples to break with sexist paradigms. Many feminists also found that non-monogamous relationships often simply gave men more power while undermining women.

Overall, men were more willing to affirm equality in the bedroom than around housework and child care, tasks still done majorly by women. Unsurprisingly, as individual women gained in class power, many dealt with inequity by hiring women caretakers.

Once a woman’s worth was no longer determined by her birthing and raising children, it was possible for a childless two-career couple to envision a “peer marriage — a relationship between equals. The absence of children made it easier to be peers simply because the way in which patriarchal society automatically assumes certain tasks will be done by mothers almost always makes it harder for women to achieve gender equity around child care” (p. 81).

Until we see major changes in the time structure of work, we cannot achieve a world where life is designed to allow men to parent more and participate eagerly. Many underpaid, overtired working males are all too willing to accept women doing all the child care, even if she is also overtired and underpaid. 

Also, individual feminist thinkers who critiqued biological determinism in other areas often embraced it when it came to mothering, unable to fully embrace the notion that fathers are as important as mothers and can parent just as well. These contradictions coupled with sexist thinking have undermined the demand for gender equity in child care.

In future feminist movements: 

1. Less time will be spent critiquing patriarchal marriage bonds; and 

2. More effort will be undertaken to show alternatives and the value of peer relationships.

Chapter 15: A Feminist Sexual Politic

Sexist thinking has taught women that sexual desire was only male, dividing them into roles of ‘madonnas’ or ‘whores.’ Women had no basis on which to construct a healthy sexual self.

Additionally, before dependable birth control, female sexual self-assertion could lead to the “punishment” of unwanted pregnancy and dangerous illegal abortions (p. 85). Hence, female sexual freedom requires dependable, safe birth control and knowledge of one’s body. An understanding of sexual integrity, which was ignored when early feminists, were focusing on just the politics of granting women sexual rights. There was little feminist education for critical consciousness teaching anti-sexist respect for bodies and what constitutes liberatory sex.

In the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, women were wrongfully encouraged to make sexual freedom and sexual promiscuity synonymous with one another. Radical lesbian activists constantly demanded that straight women reconsider their bonds with men and the possibility for women to have a liberated heterosexual experience within the patriarchy. This proved useful since it forced straight women to engage in ongoing critical vigilance about heterosexual practice and highlighted lesbianism in ways that positively exposed their strengths and weaknesses. Many heterosexual women were seduced by the popular slogan “feminism is the theory, lesbianism the practice,” but soon turned away from feminism altogether due to broken relationships and forcing themselves into homosexuality.

By the ‘80s, most of the dialogue surrounding sex was either pornographic or puritanical with very little in between. Hence, there is a need for renewed feminist dialogue about sexuality to know what liberatory sexual practice looks like: fundamental mutual respect.

Within patriarchal society, sustained heterosexual bliss cannot be attained unless both parties have divested from sexist thinking. Men must let go of the assumption that female sexuality exists to satisfy them and many women must let go of their fixation on penetration and that their sexuality must always be sought after by men to have meaning and value.

“A truly liberatory feminist sexual politic will always make the assertion of female sexual agency central. Erotic connection calls us away from isolation and alienation into community. In a world where positive expressions of sexual longing connect us, we will all be free to choose those sexual practices which affirm and nurture our growth.” (p. 91)

Chapter 16: Total Bliss

“If any female feels she needs anything beyond herself to legitimate and validate her existence, she is already giving away her power to be self-defining, her agency” (p. 95).

Being a member of an exploited group does not make anyone more inclined to resist. If it did, all women would participate in the women’s movement. Experience, coupled with awareness and choice, is the factor that usually leads women into leftist politics.

The revelation that women do not need to depend on men for their well-being and happiness opened up many avenues for women, especially since many did continue to stay in relationships with dominating sexist males, simply because they could not imagine a happy life without men. 

Early feminism used two categorizations:

1. woman-identified woman: activists who did not choose lesbianism but who did choose to not depend on male affirmation

2. man-identified woman: females who dropped feminist principles if they interfered with romantic heterosexual concerns, supported men over women, and could always see things from the male perspective

The academization of feminism reinscribed heterosexist hierarchies where straight women with fancy credentials were often given higher respect despite their non-involvement in the movement outside academia. 

Many lesbians who were most radical in the movement were from working-class backgrounds. They were more willing to critique white supremacy than their straight comrades and desire to strengthen bonds with all men. They were distanced and began dropping out of the movement by the mid-‘80s.

Within the feminist movement, lesbians have always had to challenge and confront homophobia, much like women of color challenged and confronted racism. In the conservative feminist critique of lesbian sadomasochism was underlying homophobia, as sadomasochism in straight women was not as harshly critiqued. This stemmed from the homophobic expectation from lesbians to follow rigid moral standards to be acceptable or make straight people feel comfortable. 

Hence, visionary feminism is a movement that acknowledges lesbian activists’ contributions and how they challenge homophobia: “For there can be no sustained sisterhood between women when there is ongoing disrespect and subordination of lesbian females by straight women” (p. 99).

Chapter 17: To Love Again

Love in patriarchal culture is linked to notions of possession, domination, and submission. Heterosexist bonds are formed on the basis of an exchange: women, being in touch with caring emotions, will give men love. In return, men, in touch with power and aggression, will provide and protect. Hence, the initial feminist take was that female freedom could only happen if women let go of their attachment to romantic love.

Notably, living for one’s children, too, was presented as another trap of love set to prevent women from achieving full self-actualization by young feminists who came to the movement rebelling against domineering mothers. The mother, who tried to vicariously live through her children, was a dominating, invasive monster capable of giving cruel punishment. 

Early on, the feminist critique of love was not complex enough. Rather than challenging patriarchal assumptions of love, it presented love as the problem. We were to do away with love and replace it with a concern for gaining rights. Many women turned away from feminist politics because they felt it denied the importance of love, familial relations, and community life. The absence of a positive feminist discourse on love, allowed patriarchal mass media to present the movement as a politic grounded in hatred.

The alternative feminist vision is based on the fundamental truth: there can be no love when there is domination. Feminist thinking and practice emphasize the value of mutual growth and self-actualization in partnerships and parenting. “In actuality, we should have been spreading the word that feminism would make it possible for women and men to know love” (p. 103).

Chapter 18: Feminist Spirituality

The feminist movement exposed the way Western metaphysical dualism (the assumption that the world can be understood by binary categories, for example, inferior-superior, good-bad) was the ideological foundation of all forms of group oppression and that such thinking formed the basis of Judeo-Christian belief systems.

Feminist critiques of patriarchal religion also coincided with a cultural shift towards new age spirituality wherein new age spiritual circle practitioners were turning away from fundamentalist Christianity and looking towards the East (Hinduism, Buddhism, Vodoun, and diverse spiritual practices) for answers. 

A large number of the women who had come to radical feminism from traditional socialist politics were atheists and saw efforts to return to a vision of sacred femininity as apolitical and sentimental. This did not last long as more women began to see the link between challenging patriarchal religion and liberatory spirituality. 

For example, in the U.S., Christian doctrine condones sexism, and male domination informs the learning of gender roles. Hence, there can be no feminist transformation without transforming religious belief.

Initially, feminist critiques of Christianity separated masses of women from the movement, but when feminist Christians began to offer creation-centered critiques and interpretations of the Bible, women were able to reconcile their feminist politics and Christianity. However, these activists and those feminists who are Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, etc, have yet to fully organize a movement that addresses the masses of believers of their respective religions, converting them to an understanding that no conflict need exist between feminism and their spirituality. 

Masses of people still think that feminism is anti-religion. Since it is in the context of feminist therapy that many women receive affirmation for their spiritual quest, the private nature of this soul searching often means that the public is uninformed about the degree to which feminist activists acknowledge the necessity of attending to the spirit. In the future feminist movement, we will need better strategies for popularizing feminist spirituality. 

Religious fundamentalism, or “a distinctive attitude of certainty as to the ultimate truth of one’s religious beliefs” (Kossowska et. al., 2018), encourages the belief that inequality is “natural” and that the control of the female body is necessary, hence its assault on reproductive rights and repressive notions of sexuality. There is still a need for feminists to engage in critique and resistance because patriarchal religion has prevented alternative paths of spirituality from persisting.

Feminist spirituality created a space for everyone to interrogate belief systems, created new paths by representing god in diverse ways, and restored respect for the sacred feminine and the importance of spiritual life.

Chapter 19: Visionary Feminism

This chapter is a summation of her expansive discourse, through which she gathers final guidelines and suggestions:

1. “To be truly visionary we have to root our imagination in our concrete reality while simultaneously imagining possibilities beyond that reality” (p. 110). A strength of feminism has been its ability to self inspect and evolve since movements that hold onto bygone paradigms tend to fail.

2. The revolutionary feminist visions became clearer and more complex as the movement progressed but were often obscured by the absolutism of reformist feminists who wanted to/gained rights within the system. This made the movement more vulnerable to co-optation by mainstream capitalist patriarchy. While thinkers such as Carol Gilian promote the higher ethicality of women, the oppression of lesser privileged groups of women proves otherwise.

3. A fundamental goal of visionary feminism was to create strategies to increase the personal power of all women. To do that, the movement needed to move beyond equal rights and start with basic issues like literacy campaigns embracing all women, especially from poorer groups.

4. There is no feminist school, no feminist college, and there has been no sustained effort to create these institutions for mass-based feminist education for critical consciousness.

5. To rebuild feminism, we must create jargon-free material. Class elitism has restricted feminist theory to academic circles with no feminists writing childrens’ books, teaching in grade schools, or sustaining a powerful lobby having constructive impact on syllabi in public schools.

6. Ironically, one of the achievements of contemporary feminism is creating spaces for discussions on gender and women, but not necessarily from a feminist view. For example, in mass media, the question of why ‘domestic’ violence takes place is raised without linking it to patriarchal thinking.

7. There is a need to begin anew with the basic premise that feminist politics is necessarily radical with a collective door-to-door effort to spread the message of feminism. The notion of “power feminism” and many “feminisms” as a lifestyle/commodity has been appropriated by women who gain class power and wealth at the cost of other women (p. 114). 

8. Visionary feminists acknowledge that collusion with the patriarchy, even to gain some rights, without a fundamental change in the system, leaves women vulnerable. These rights can be easily taken away (e.g., legal abortions in the U.S.).

9. Anti-feminist backlash (a huge part coming from opportunistic, conservative women) has undermined feminism. Critics blame feminism for the modern woman’s dissatisfaction, never critiquing the patriarchy, racism, or class exploitation. Also, anti-feminist books tend to be written in an accessible language appealing to a broad audience. Hence, it is essential to document the victories of feminist work as testimony countering this popular assumption.

10. Visionary feminists have always understood the need for feminist men. Those activists who refuse to accept men as comrades (irrationally fearing that if men benefit in any way from feminist politics, women lose) have misguidedly helped feminism gain infamy. While patriarchal mass media continues to spread the lie that males are unwelcome in feminist classrooms, more males are studying feminist thought and converting than ever.

11. We can begin feminist work at home, educating ourselves and others.

12. There is no one path to feminism. Individuals from diverse backgrounds need feminist theory that applies to their lives. 

13. Radical visionary feminism encourages self-introspection from the standpoint of gender, race, and class to understand our position within the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

14. If feminism had not offered a true accounting of the dangers of the patriarchy, it would have failed and there would have been no need for an anti-feminist campaign. The backlash is a marker of its truthfulness.

15. Visionary feminism offers us hope for the future by emphasizing the ethics of mutuality (the shared feeling, action or relationship between individuals in a group) and interdependence (individuals’ reliance on each other within a group). It offers a way to end domination and change the impact of inequality. “In a universe where mutuality is the norm, there may be times when all is not equal, but the consequence of that inequality will not be subordination, colonization, and dehumanization” (p. 117).

16. Feminism as a movement is alive and well. While not mass-based, the renewal of such a movement is our primary goal.

Source

Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Pluto Press.

Support the author

• Buy the book