Can someone please shed some light on this statement? Instead she asks for more dedication from the women workers, turning them into the kind of women who are more acceptable among elites because businesses get more productivity out of them. What is the evidence that she does not ask for this kind of dedication or policy change from workplaces?
For example, on p. A subtler but also important recommendation is found on pp. To me, it all looks like another way of silencing women. There are lots of academic theorist books that unpack intersectionality and racism and neoliberal capitalism. But what I, me, personally need urgently are role models of women who are right at the top of the system we live inside.
I want to know how the Christine Lagardes and Angela Merkels and top executives negotiate raw power. I want to know how powerful women can make unpleasant, tough decisions and not be accused of being bitches, or have their decisions disregarded. There must be space for non-academic, non-theoretical feminism. In fact SHE is silencing women by ignoring critical aspects of reality for millions of women. I should not be silenced anymore than she should. These two qualities are essential for a book that claims to be for all women.
No one is accusing her of being a terrible person, but it is very telling of society that only books like this get so much attention. Perhaps if she changed the title, or at the very least acknowledge the large gaps in her reach. In my neighborhood, most women work at corporations not universities or utopian co-ops. This is what is on offer for income and benefits.
Some of them are white, hispanic, indian, asian and black. I can say it is remarkable that any woman who is on the C-level at a corporation would out herself as a feminist. I am also trying to be feminist in my orientation to power and oppression. I really appreciate this article and critique. None are revelations, but perhaps function more to confirm what one might expect: Also, these behaviors influence values.
I have seen this with both genders, though it has been especially noticeable concerning women who have children. TED News in Brief: A sneak peek at the new TED. The article assumes a familiarity with feminist theory and some academic terms that overlap terms in popular use.
EcoSalon Conscious Culture and Fashion. Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. So, we should combine efforts to dig deep with efforts to stand up, to defend and insist on education that goes beyond leaning in or seeking to be part of white supremacist, heteropatriarchal corporate America. While this ideally would come as a collective call for transformative education and for social justice, the reality of the current structure on US campuses demands that we also need committed leadership—those individual faculty, chairs, and deans who have a seat at that proverbial table—to stand up.
In the patriarchal academy, standing up for visionary feminist curricula and pedagogy that re-imagine the world is one way those of us privileged enough to already be on or affiliated with campuses including alums can work for change, especially in the context of LeanIn. Mother hooks as spoken…. I feel like bell hooks has a narrow perspective of someone with a protected university job with benefits who has the luxury of sneering at women who work at corporations.
No one is attacking you for having a job at a corporation, but they are they criticizing the scope of modern feminism for resting squarely on the plight of the upper middle class. For some women, power is an issue when her male colleagues pass her over for promotions. For some women, power is an issue when her male colleagues coerce her into sex with threats of termination because they know she is too financially vulnerable to quit, report their actions, or seek legal help.
These are women who need feminism the most, and we do them a grave disservice by letting the feminist agenda be set by a rich white woman who was born into money. Sheryl Sandberg has no experience with overcoming the systemic forms of female oppression that exist in our society; her feminist credentials begin and end with a book about her own experiences in corporate America.
Kate, I agree with you that nobody should be sneering at bell hooks. I wonder if my oppression card has been punched enough times to participate in the discourse! But how does Sandberg do that?
Her book is loaded with examples like those discussed on p. If she claimed to be setting THE feminist agenda, that would be bad. If she was ignoring concerns of other women or speaking about things that were irrelevant to their lives, that would be bad. What is the actual evidence that she does this? When people write something like this: Lean In is about the need for women to rise in corporations to the C-level. Do we criticize a book about stay at home moms for not covering corporate ambitions enough?
Just women who are visible and wealthy get the demand to be all things to all people. Lean In is a thing that effete feminists love to bash like Rush and bash it for not being all things to all people and for all ambitions of women.
It was never about all things. I agree with you, Goldie. While I can appreciate some of her arguments I feel that this is the sort of divisive argument that is holier than thou while serving only to alienates women from the feminist movement. As someone who considers herself to be a feminist, I find this very disheartening.
This sends the message: By being part of that world in the first place you are, by definition, part of the problem. Yeah, we get it. Lean In is about the need for women to get ahead at corporations, though.
As the writer above notes, it is like complaining that a vegetarian cookbook does not have enough about meat. Not exactly a fair review when you expect a book that says it is about a thing to criticize it for not being about anything else.
I guess we should criticize bell hooks for not being about the white feminist perspective by that logic. But her writing about Lean In seems more like an ax grinding about white women in corporations than social change and a sneering at white feminists in general.
Not all women can be as sneering at one race or sneering at women working with ambition at US businesses but her sneering puts her in the category of one of the racist conservative professors with tenure who carelessly writes to divide, hitting minorities for sassy sport. White women are not for the hitting as sport. This is like sneering at women who try to improve factories or WalMart. They are not privileged to opt out of corporate life as they earn a living or to be so choosy in environments that they can just opt not to work for a US business in their community.
In a bit of irony, bell hooks is not inclusive of women and should be called out for not including the perspective of these women in her writings. Your characterisation of bell hooks as some kind of jealous, privileged racist is pretty hilarious. Sandberg is addressing wealthy, already successful, white, heterosexual women in the corporate world. To use a phrase coined by an actual feminist writer:. Feminism is, or should be, for all women. Women of colour, LBQ women, trans women, disabled women, impoverished women all exist too.
The patriarchy, the kyriarchy , does nothing but grind those women into the ground. Also, bell hooks is not claiming that capitalism is evil. Patriarchy must be dismantled from within. Rights are not a zero-sum game, giving rights to women does not remove rights from men. Allowing people of colour to be on an equal footing with white people does not disadvantage whites. Equal access for people with disabilities physical, sensory, developmental and psychological does not remove access for able and neurotypical people, does it?
Look at the disgraceful healthcare system in the US, something that strikes at the very heart of the battle for social justice. Only with patriarchy dismantled can the for equality truly begin. Only then can we turn up the heat and make everyone warm, instead of begging, and having to be grateful, for tiny thin blankets. I reject any so-called feminism that focuses solely on the needs of the privileged few while minimising or outright ignoring the needs of those that need the most help and who have the most to gain from the movement.
What is the actual evidence for this claim? I also find ZERO evidence of this — indeed, precisely the opposite! Challenging male privilege and even class privilege does not require the systematic dismantling of capitalism to begin prior to any challenging.
You are illustrating exactly the points she makes about why this stuff is so hard, and what would be needed to change it. Have you read the book, seriously? Thank you again Bell Hooks for this brilliant piece. Rather, she starts from the premise that it would be better if people who were presently excluded from the victories in that system were taking part in it. And she does indeed specifically address the criticism that merely putting women at the top is enough.
Why is it BAD to seek greater involvement of women in positions of power? When it comes to how we achieve the actual victories, Sandberg has good advice. I want to know how someone who succeeded did it. Sandberg wants to lift people up in the midst of what we may consider an inherently exploitative system. I see nothing wrong with that. You may wish she had written a more revolutionary book! In a word, baloney! This book is not aimed at white women, or at rich women; the fact that people like hooks think it is merely reflects how they too are trapped in this set of false expectations and assumptions about who people are and how they live or want to live.
I wonder if Marx wore shirts that made him look vulnerable. Can the revolution survive it? Anybody else says this and they are labelled many negative ists including racist.
I am a black African woman with ambition to get to the c-level of my organisation. I found this review irritating, but I suppose others found Lean In irritating too. While I understand the criticism of the book from the sense that it should not be the guide for change and feminism as a whole, I think it does something important.
It gets people thinking and opens up questions for those who are not active within any community that speaks about issues of equality. I think this article looks at what the media and the moneymakers say about it, but not individuals the everyday non-activist or gender studies expert.
Reading this book cause me to think deeply about some things as a 20 something, who in fact never realized that I would be treated differently based on my gender until I entered the workforce. I found this article and have been doing more reading about the issues that were raised both things I agreed with in Lean In and other things that were skimmed over.
I generally think that for individuals that are not within the academic world of feminism, Lean In has started a dialogue many would not have even dared start. I would go with Feminism for beginners. As a white, cisstraight, able-bodied, neurotypical, wealthy, married and apparently submissive to her husband , christian?
American woman she is positively dripping in privilege. She represents a banal, flavourless, vanilla, ersatz feminism designed to do absolutely nothing to challenge the status quo. Please do some learning — this is bell hooks. I would say that your very snarky comments are exactly what keeps a lot of women from getting involved in feminist causes. Maybe in your world knowing about and even challenging gender roles is common, but that is not the world as a whole.
It is common in my world for people to think that my ambitions towards career and away from marriage are weird and reading on feminist topics is not the norm. Furthermore, just because I though the article was irritating does not mean that all it said was lost on me.. Honestly, the way you addressed me was very internet troll and just turns me off from listening to what you have to say.
You know nothing of my world or my situation, you apparently cannot fathom why people might be angry at the constant bowing and scraping at the feet of the patriarchy performed by Sandberg and her ilk. You may be considering, for the first time, that expectations of wifedom and motherhood are not where your future lies, good for you, but guess what?
I wish you could see that and understand the depth of the anger and pain that women are speaking from, empathising with the struggle and standing with them as they fight, but that would involve critical thinking and understanding why women like bell hooks are critical. The irony is that these women have made real changes in the world, staked a claim for women, and made life better for hundreds of thousands of women and girls. Many of the things you take for granted were made possible by women who literally shed their blood that you might live as a free woman.
Will Sandberg be able to improve educational access for minority children? Can she wipe out the number one cause of death for pregnant women? Do yet know what that is? Or, instead of enabling women to escape violent men, supporting them on the road to independence, is she just trying to get more Jimmy Choos under the boardroom table?
Real progress, real results, real tangible freedoms. When will they be invited on the public-speaking circuit? Why should strength, determination and righteous anger be considered so threatening?
Sandberg is given a platform because men approve of her neutered, anodyne message, and know that the only change it will invoke is the topic of conversation for the women of the chattering classes. Those shedding blood, sweat and tears for real change will remain ignored at best, maligned at worst, because the patriarchy is too scared to give them a voice. The primary reason I would consider your comments trolling is because of the name calling and snark that is unnecessary.
Making fun of me, calling me ignorant, using sarcasim to put me down behind the safety of your keyboard is trolling. You seem to assume a lot of willful ignorance on my part. Reading her book, led me here and to some other reading. I read her book because I was interested in learning about handling myself in the workplace not to learn about feminism, yet it sparked my interest. Reading the book has only caused me to want to learn more and I would say I am just beginning.
Reading this article has continued bringing up things I had not previously considered, but I maintain that saying that Lean In has zero value to anyone is not true. My experience is a perfect example. If you want me to say that you are more knowledgable than me, you win, you are.
You know what anger has accomplished? Patriarchy needs to be dismantled if equality is to be achieved, not cosied up to and emulated.
Nobody will hold your hand through discovering what feminism is, what it should be, or what it means for you. You have to do it yourself. You got yourself off on the wrong foot for criticising someone without taking one minute to find out who they were. Feminism is the realisation that women and girls are fully human, with bodily autonomy, and the right to live outwith the control of a man.
An executive parking space helps no-one but the executive. Read around, go through the archives here at FW, really truly educate yourself. If just one person realises that the patriarchy and capitalism Sandberg reveres are the very forces keeping women down, then the world will be closer to being a better place.
Be abusive of those that differ from your perspective and erect monuments to those that echo your beliefs. That always helps your point along. Tell me, how hard is it to pay someone the bare minimum of respect, i.
I refuse to be ashamed of the truth, of my respect for women who work to make the real world better, and my justified anger that they are belittled, shunned and ignored. The regressives and plagiarists are praised to the hilt for their well-rehearsed patter, while the real activists have been growing grass-roots, watered with blood and fed by bodies, since before I was born. Why is it so hard to ask people to educate themselves, to read around fashionista-feminism instead of taking it as gospel and swallowing it wholesale?
All it does is fill a pretty pink balloon with hot air so that people look up at that, instead of looking down at the bodies piling up around their feet.
If you were writing objectively that would make sense. Your commentary so clearly has labeled me see the Reassuring white…. OMGtotesjelli comment among others so why even bother ranting at me. I did not ask for you to hand hold me or to teach me anything. I may not be as knowledgable as you, but I am not going to launch insults and unfounded personal attacks on someone and lift myself up by calling it real Feminism.
That comment was not addressed to you, but to Lydia who has been white-knighting for Sandberg hither and thither. And back to you, you claim you want to learn, to know more, yes? You want your hand held. Those are just off the top of my head. It is not about what we just feel, but more about what we do.
She states, "So many people think that it's enough to say what they feel, even if their actions do not correspond to what they are feeling". Bell hooks began her book with a series of spiritual messages, which include biblical verses to support her definition of love. She claims that a standard definition of love must include spiritual growth for one's self and others.
Hooks identifies flaws with relationships nowadays since there is a loose understanding about love. She shares personal experiences about fearing rejection and emotional pain. As a result, she acknowledges lacking full commitment and expressing vulnerability because of the fear of not receiving those things in return, so giving care and affection are the minimal expectations she had in her relationships.
However, those love components were not enough. Hooks introduces the necessity of practicing self-love and care to sustain healthy relationship with a concrete understanding of love. Overall, this book sheds some light on what hooks sees as the modern day abandonment of love and what it means for people of today to experience love. One argument she proposes is how love cannot exist in the middle of a power struggle. Hooks goes as far as to present a number of problems she finds with our modern ideals of love and proposes their possible solutions.
She includes the propositions of full reconstruction and transformation of modern-day love based on "affection, respect, recognition, commitment, trust and care" Nonfiction Book Review. Hooks also points out what she sees to be the roots of the problems regarding modern day love, those being gender stereotypes, domination, control, ego, and aggression Nonfiction Book Review.
Another argument hooks discusses is one in which she describes how starting from a very young age, boys and girls are constantly being knocked down and told to fit into the tiny boxes of characteristics that are expected of them. Hooks points out that the boy is denied his right to show, or even have, any true feelings.
To further explain, she uses men in the American culture as an example, and describes how they have been socialized to mistrust the value and power of love. While the girl is taught that the most important thing she can do is change herself and her own feelings, with the hopes of attracting and pleasing everyone else. These unfair expectations lead boys and girls to grow up into men and women who are convinced that lies are the way to go, and no one should be showing their truest feelings to each other.
This leads to the paradox hooks points out because in order to have a functional, and healthy loving relationship, honesty is a natural requirement. In bell hooks's own words, "Lies may make people feel better, but they do not help them to know love". In this case, the men are emotionally satisfied, and the women are left without any true happiness. Hooks points out that despite these evident problems in modern-day love culture, love can be revived, and this is what she is arguing throughout her book.
Bell hooks wrote this book to inform the world how we can change the way we think about love, our culture, and one another. She teaches us ways to love in a face of a planet of love-lessness.
Her New Visions demonstrate how love is possible, and stress that all love is important—romantic, friendship, our love of strangers, and community. Noting a lack of diverse voices in popular feminist theory , bell hooks published the book Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center in In this book, she argues that those voices have been marginalized, and states: She claimed, "Women in lower class and poor groups, particularly those who are non-white, would not have defined women's liberation as women gaining social equality with men since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share a common social status.
She used the work as a platform to offer a new, more inclusive feminist theory. Her theory encouraged the long-standing idea of sisterhood but advocated for women to acknowledge their differences while still accepting each other. Hooks challenged feminists to consider gender's relation to race, class, and sex, a concept known as intersectionality.
She also argues for the importance of male involvement in the equality movement, stating that, in order for change to occur, men must do their part. Hooks also calls for a restructuring of the cultural framework of power, one that does not find oppression of others necessary. Part of this restructuring involves allowing men into the feminist movement, so that there is not a separationist ideology, so much as an incorporating camaraderie.
Additionally, she shows great appreciation for the movement away from feminist thought as led by bourgeois white women, and towards a multidimensional gathering of both genders to fight for the raising up of women. This shifts the original focus of feminism away from victimization, and towards harboring understanding, appreciation, and tolerance for all genders and sexes so that all are in control of their own destinies, uncontrolled by patriarchal, capitalist tyrants.
Another part of restructuring the movement comes from education; bell hooks points out that there is an anti-intellectual stigma among the masses. Poor people do not want to hear from intellectuals because they are different and have different ideas. As bell hooks points out though, this stigma against intellectuals leads to poor people who have risen up to become graduates of post secondary education, to be shunned because they are no longer like the rest of the masses.
In order for us to achieve equality, people must be able to learn from those who have been able to smash these stereotypes.
This separation leads to further inequality and in order for the feminist movement to succeed, they must be able to bridge the education gap and relate to those in the lower end of the economic sphere. If they are able to do this, then there will be more success and less inequality. In "Rethinking The Nature of Work", bell hooks goes beyond discussing work and raises a pertinent question that feminists may need to ask themselves. In her book Reel to Real , hooks discusses the effect that movies have on any given individual, with specific emphasis on the black female spectator.
She argues that, although we know that movies are not real life, "no matter how sophisticated our strategies of critique and intervention, [we] are usually seduced, at least for a time, by the images we see on the screen.
They have power over us, and we have no power over them. What makes this production—this commodity—daring is its subject matter. Obviously Lemonade positively exploits images of black female bodies—placing them at the center, making them the norm. In this visual narrative, there are diverse representations black female bodies come in all sizes, shapes, and textures with all manner of big hair.
Portraits of ordinary everyday black women are spotlighted, poised as though they are royalty. The unnamed, unidentified mothers of murdered young black males are each given pride of place.
Real life images of ordinary, overweight not dressed up bodies are placed within a visual backdrop that includes stylized, choreographed, fashion plate fantasy representations.
Concurrently, the scantily-clothed dancing image of athlete Serena Williams also evokes sportswear. Lemonade offers viewers a visual extravaganza—a display of black female bodies that transgresses all boundaries. This is certainly not radical or revolutionary. From slavery to the present day, black female bodies, clothed and unclothed, have been bought and sold. What makes this commodification different in Lemonade is intent; its purpose is to seduce, celebrate, and delight—to challenge the ongoing present day devaluation and dehumanization of the black female body.
Throughout Lemonade the black female body is utterly-aestheticized—its beauty a powerful in your face confrontation. This is no new offering. Many of the black and white still images of women and nature are reminiscent of the transformative and innovative contemporary photography of Carrie Mae Weems. She has continually offered decolonized radical revisioning of the black female body. This in and of itself is no small feat—it shifts the gaze of white mainstream culture.
It challenges us all to look anew, to radically revision how we see the black female body.
This essay from bell hooks' book Black Looks: Race and Representation goes into great depth on a number of points, but the main point she makes is that people that fall under the category of.
[tags: Racism Black Race Bell Hooks Essays] Strong Essays words | ( pages) | Preview. Accomplishments of Bell Hooks - Bell Hooks is a well-known Feminist. She has achieved a lot through her lifetime, and is still going strong. Bell Hooks is mostly known for her fight for feminism and for mainly African American females.
Black Looks: Race and Representation is a collection of 12 essays by Bell Hooks looking at a range of issues including black sexuality, masculinity, commodification of black culture and black history, arising from representations of people of colour in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy/5. [tags: Racism Black Race Bell Hooks Essays] Better Essays words ( pages) Accomplishments of Bell Hooks Essay - Bell Hooks is a well-known Feminist. She has achieved a lot through her lifetime, and is still going strong. Bell Hooks is mostly known for her fight for feminism and for mainly African American females.
Gloria Jean Watkins (born September 25, ), better known by her pen name bell hooks, is an American author, Bell hooks has written a number of essays and articles, Hooks, Bell (). Black looks: race and representation. Essays - largest database of quality sample essays and research papers on Bell Hooks Racism And Feminism.