bell hooks’ definition of feminism, “a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression,” is one that I completely agree with. I believe that what she means by this is that feminism is not a movement that necessarily encourages anti-male sentiment, but anti-patriarchal sentiment. This is important because the patriarchy does not only harm women – it harms everyone in our society, including men. By choosing to define feminism this way, it highlights the importance of being inclusive, and striving for the end of sexism as a whole. hooks’ definition of feminism is very similar to the one I’ve subscribed to. I think that her definition is very broad, and can cover a lot of feminist issues, ranging from microaggressions to sexual violence.
I like that hooks mentions how revolutionary feminist thinking became something inaccessible to the public. I think that still holds true somewhat – theory and literature are sometimes specifically worded in an intimidating way, and it makes it nearly impossible for some people to engage with it. Therefore, it prevents the spread of knowledge, and it upholds a space for only those who are privileged and “educated” enough to engage with that media, leaving very little room for any change to be made. I think that her own personal meaning is encouraging, and simple enough to be understood by most people, which is a great thing!
The reading Sex and Gender 101 was very intriguing because it introduced some new information to me that I wasn’t aware of – the many different chromosome combinations seen in intersex people! I only knew a little bit about the intersex community before reading, so it was very exciting for me to learn about. However, I do think that the way in which bisexuality and pansexuality are defined in the text can get a little tricky. For some, the line between bisexuality and pansexuality can be very blurry, seeing as some people believe that bisexuality excludes transgender and nonbinary people (I don’t agree with this) and others believe that bisexuality encompasses all genders, since there aren’t only 2 of them. But then, what about pansexuality? It really depends on who you talk to. I personally believe that labels can be very helpful, and yet very confusing, all at once. Finding what works for you personally is the most important thing, whether you decide to label yourself or not. Overall, though, I thought it was a very good and informative reading.
I like that you brought up a critique of the definitions of bisexuality and pansexuality. I touched upon this in my discussion post too, as I think they’re non-inclusive definitions. I like to define bisexuality as “an attraction to 2 or more genders” and Pansexuality as “an attraction to people regardless of gender” I think that defining pansexuality as ” being attracted to qualities of a person rather than biological sex or gender” (like in the article) can imply that non-pansexual’s dehumanize and sexualize prospective partners rather than seeking overall attraction on multiple levels. This can portray pansexual’s as morally superior for liking “hearts not parts”
Exactly!!! I’m so glad I’m not the only one who thought that. I completely agree with you. Thanks for replying!
So interesting – I also commented on Dylan’s post about this. I wonder if sometimes definitions are generational. In the 90s (when I was coming of age), the concept of bisexuality definitely always seemed very binary. Of course in the 90s, we did not readily use the word “nonbinary” and so the landscape has really changed. It’s really interesting for me to rethink this in light of what you all are offering.
Definitely generational!!! You’re right, there wasn’t a word like “non-binary” used openly in the 90s, so it makes sense that bisexuality was rigidly binary then.
I’ve met lgbt people from older generations that still self identify with words we don’t use today like “transsexual”, “cross-dresser”, “transvestite” etc., while disliking the word “queer” Self-identification with these terms that were once used as insults, can be a self-reclamation and empowering for the person. It’s cool to see how individual and personal one’s label and identification truly is.
Hi Paulina!
I learned a lot about feminism when reading Bell Hook’s essay. I still need to wrap my head around a few things, but I learned about the true meaning of Feminism and not how most people negatively represent it. It’s not about hating men, but about hating the actions they do and how they still have power over us when they do, which is what we’re fighting to stop.
I really appreciate that you address revolutionary feminism. That distinction is one of the most important ones for me. It has been black queer feminists who I have found to be the most revolutionary.