After finished reading materiels of this week, it reminds me of the discussions among people that what is the real feminism and feminism develops more and more genres today. “White feminist “”Black feminist” “Feminist from first world” and so on. That’s why I like Bell Hook’s definition about feminism that is about ending sexism. More genres developing means that there are different problems and issues exist. According to multiple reasons as countries’ developing status, classes which make these problems and issues more comlicated.
For conservative groups, their demands are almost the same since traditional value apply similar in different places in the world which make them eaiser to united. Being liberal could face more standards and I feel like if a liberal misses either one standard they would be facing judges or they would be categorized to the convervative groups.
My personal opinion is we should unite more and less divide. We are all human and we all have something in common. Let humanitiy goes first and what we demand is ending sexism, we want to have more team mates instead of creating more enermies.
Yin,
Yes, thats a great way to bring back defining feminism in the words of bell hooks. After reading on the blurry genres of its definition according to different decades in “What’s in a Name?”, I was frustrated to feel that women of this movement have nitpicked over the term when the focus should be on the commonality between their fight. hooks’ definition certainly can bring all these groups together by demanding an end to all forms of sexism. The intersectionality within so many of these terms prove that these issues are much more complicated than just demanding an end to them by understanding how they were strategically put in place for the survival of a society that never intended to create equality and justice for all.
Hi Yin, I like the way you responded to the discussion bored, you kept it very clear and simple.