Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics

hooks is insistent in her tone as she begins this chapter with an explanation of her belief that white women who do not acknowledge their privilege are “in denial” (55), whether or not “they participated in anti-racist struggle” (55) during the fight for civil rights. Advocating for the rights of nonwhite Americans does “not mean that they had divested of white supremacy, of notions that they were superior to black females, more informed, better educated, more suited to ‘lead’ a movement” (55-56).

According to hooks, the early feminist movement was full of individuals who “entered the movement erasing and denying difference…eliminating race from the picture” (56), and this tendency became problematic because “[w]hen the feminist movement began racial integration was still rare” (56). Later, in the 70s and 80s, the younger generation of women of color who “were educated in predominantly white settings” (57) challenged the inherent racism of this “reluctan[ce] to acknowledge difference among women” (57). Though this notion was met with resistance, the perspective of these young feminists originated in their own experiences with reality, and they “were demanding that we look at the status of the females realistically…not to diminish the vision of sisterhood” (57).

hooks credits the “interventions around race” (58) with strengthening the feminist movement as “the class interests of privileged women, especially white women” (58) soon became less of a focus of feminist theorists. hooks feels hopeful about the future that these interventions promise, because she has seen that “the will to change, the will to create the context for struggle and liberation, remains stronger than the need to hold on to wrong beliefs and assumptions” (58).

While hooks is careful to celebrate success when it comes to “an analysis of race into much feminist scholarship” (59), more action is needed because “[r]acism and sexism combined create harmful barriers between women” (59).

hooks begins this chapter with a reminder to the reader that “contemporary feminist movement was the force that dramatically uncovered and exposed the ongoing reality of domestic violence” (61). Though the mention of domestic violence often conjures up an image of a male leader of the household abusing a female partner, violence between women and violence against children must also be addressed. This violence in a home setting has patriarchal origins, so hooks supports the term “patriarchal violence” (61) rather than domestic violence because “it continually reminds the listener that violence in the home is connected to sexism and sexist thinking, to male domination” (62).

The connection between sexism and violence in the home is obvious to hooks, who is “among those rare feminist theorists who believe that it is crucial for feminist movement to have as an overriding agenda ending all forms of violence” (62). This application of non-violence to all situations ensures that “violent attacks on children [that] are perpetrated by women” (62) receive as much attention as other forms of violence. hooks is clear that “women are not nonviolent” (63) despite the tendency of reformist feminists to “choose often to portray females as always and only victims” (62). This tendency is wrong, as evidenced by “lots of women [who] believe that a person in authority has the right to use force to maintain authority” (64). Thanks to a long history of patriarchy in America, this “hierarchal system in a culture of domination…empowers females” (64) to use force as an acceptable means of disciplining and controlling children.

While hooks expands upon the notion that women are capable of violence, she also discusses the problem of male domination of women and children in the home, blaming it on socialization “by ruling-class groups of men” (64) and “the sexist sex role hierarchy” (65), both of which teach that maintaining authority in the home with force is an appropriate show of power. “[M]en are not the only people who accept, condone, and perpetuate violence” (65), and hooks “urge[s] women to take responsibility for the role women play in condoning violence” (65). Only with this sense of responsibility will women in parenting roles be able to teach children to “turn away from violence” (66).