Beyonce labeled partly "Anti-Feminist" and a "terrorist" by feminist scholar

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/beyonce-anti-feminist_n_5295891.html

Famed feminist, author and social activist Dr. bell hooks has some qualms about Beyonce and the feminist perspective she projects.

Hooks took part in a panel discussion at New York's New School on Wednesday, May 7, alongside trans advocate Janet Mock, filmmaker Shola Lynch and author Marci Blackman. The conversation (titled "Are You Still a Slave?&quot discussed how images of women of color are presented in the media and what messages they send. The topic of Beyonce arose in relation to her recent Time 100 magazine cover, for which she posed in her underwear, garnering criticism at the time of the issue's release.

“Let’s take the image of this super rich, very powerful black female, and let’s use it in the service of imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy, because she probably had very little control over that cover, that image," hooks said.

Mock argued that Beyonce does have control over such imagery, but hooks disagreed with the notion that "we can recoup the violating image and use it ... even if it serves you to make lots and lots of money." From here, hooks segued into a discussion of Beyonce's socioeconomic status:

**************************************************************

I guess Loofah O'Lielly has a new ally.

[LittleBlue]

2. She sounds hateful of Beyonce

Some people just can't accept the success of others.

Beyonce has made a fortune entertaining millions, and every penny deserved. Kids have always dreamed of growing up and being successful, it's not her fault little girls want to be her.

[liberalhistorian]

26. Sorry, but no, every penny is NOT "deserved".

Why should you get millions for exercising your vocal chords in front of a microphone? Seriously? Look, I have nothing against her and find hook's characterization of her to be ridiculous, but no one deserves millions of dollars for entertaining, I don't give a shit how many people are "entertained."

My parents worked damned hard for forty years as teachers, which is a REAL job that makes a REAL difference in lives, and now my mother is broke because most of their pensions go to his nursing home for his early-onset dementia before Medicaid will pay its tiny monthly share. They often went through hell, including when standing up for students and at the hands of sadistic administrators and unreasonable parents, and have ended up getting shit for it. Please explain to me why their services, which were so much more valuable to society, are not worth millions while someone who beauties herself up and exercises her vocal chords for people to dance to and be entertained IS, apparently. And why aren't nurses, social workers, childcare workers and early childhood educators, elderly caregivers, firefighters, etc., all of whose services society could not function without, also worth millions?

[NJCher]

31. to liberalhistorian

Cher

[840high]

32. ...^ that

[BainsBane]

3. bell hooks is African American too

are you going to imply all black people are bad because you don't like hooks' views on Beyoncé?

You better familiarize yourself with her life and writings before you call hooks an ally of O'Reilly or right-winger. Your lack of exposure to the world of arts and letters is showing. Is it really so hard to look someone up on Wikipedia, or is the goal of showing how awful feminists are worth maligning one of the leading African American literary and intellectual voices of our age?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

4. "are you going to imply all black people are bad because you don't like hooks' views on Beyoncé."

Even for you, that was a pretty sorry leap of logic.

All I know is Beyonce seems to be the whipping post of choice for certain people. BillO and hooks are the latest.

But thanks for telling me she was an African American. I had NO idea or who she was until you EDUCATED me. Certainly a certified troglodyte such as myself could not have known that. Thanks!

[BainsBane]

6. You could have checked Wikipedia

but evidently denouncing feminists was too important of a goal to avoid maligning one of the leading African American literary and intellectual voices of the past fifty years.

Clearly you do need some educating if you think it makes any sense to compare her to O'Reilly. The fact you never even heard of her says a lot.


bell hooks

"Her teaching career began in 1976 as an English professor and senior lecturer in Ethnic Studies at the University of Southern California." Imagine what that means: An African American woman in a faculty position in 1976. Most departments in the country still don't have African American women among their faculty.

Since the publication of Ain’t I a Woman?, she has become eminent as a leftist and postmodern political thinker and cultural critic. She targets and appeals to a broad audience by presenting her work in a variety of media using various writing and speaking styles. As well as having written books, she has published in numerous scholarly and mainstream magazines, lectures at widely accessible venues, and appears in various documentaries.

She is frequently cited by feminists as having provided the best solution to the difficulty of defining something as diverse as "feminism", addressing the problem that if feminism can mean everything, it means nothing. She asserts an answer to the question "what is feminism?" that she says is "rooted in neither fear nor fantasy... 'Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression'".

Ain’t I a Woman? (a reference to a speech by Sojourner Truth, a freedwomen and abolitionist) examines several recurring themes in her later work: the historical impact of sexism and racism on black women, devaluation of black womanhood, media roles and portrayal, the education system, the idea of a white-supremacist-capitalist-patriarchy, the marginalization of black women, and the disregard for issues of race and class within feminism.

. . .


Noting a lack of diverse voices in popular feminist theory, bell hooks published this work in 1984. In Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center she explains that those voices have been marginalized. “To be in the margin is to be part of the whole but outside the main body.” 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. bell hooks challenged feminists to consider gender’s relation to race, class, and sex, a concept coined as intersectionality. hooks covers the importance of male involvement in the equality movement, that in order to make change 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. . . .


She has attracted criticism, often from conservative writers. Writer David Horowitz has specifically objected to a passage in the first chapter of Killing Rage, in which hooks states that she is "sitting beside an anonymous white male that long to murder" because he was complicit in a boarding pass misunderstanding that resulted in the harassment of her black, female friend. Of these kind of "irrational, violent impulses," hooks states, "My irrational impulse to want to kill people who bore me or whose ideas are not very complex clearly has to do with an exaggerated response to situations where I feel powerless."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks

Add the deniers of white male privilege to her list of conservative critics. Quelle surprise.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

7. Well, how dare I....

Apparently that Wikipedia article says somewhere she's never wrong either. I guess Beyonce loses this one then. Thanks, once again, for your help.

By the way, I have heard of her. Just in case the rarefied air you live in makes it hard for you to figure out, that's what the meant.

[BainsBane]

9. It's one thing to crique an argument

and another to compare her to O'Reilly. You made clear that your goal as usual is to try to pretend there is something reactionary about feminism, a movement you have made clear you find objectionable.

I could critique Mark Twain or Upton Sinclair, but I wouldn't have to call them Fox News allies to do it. If I were to make such a comment, it would reveal far more about me than those writers, as your comments do about you.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

11. "a movement you have made clear you find objectionable"

Considering there are movements of feminism that you and your cohorts find objectionable....how can you seriously make that claim? I simply don't subscribe to your brand of feminism, which makes me and many if not most others here beneath your contempt. C'est la vie....trust me, it does not bother me one bit as I'm sure you don't give a shit what I think either.

[BainsBane]

12. Oh, "my cohorts" or me?

I am a person, not a collective. I recall objecting to no "movement of feminism." I had issues with Femen for Islamophobia and excluding "chubby chicks" and women over 30. I don't think you'll find any comments by me objecting to "movements of feminism."

The issue in the OP is bell hooks and her brand of feminism, the kind that promotes the inclusion of issues of race and concerns of women of color. She is the person you are maligning here. I am not the issue, though I suspect your motivation is to cast in a bad light the awful women on DU who talk about issues like rape. bell hooks is merely your sacrificial lamb in that crusade. She deserves far better. When it comes to African American and feminist voices, bell hooks is a towering figure. I am just a random person on the internet. Using her to go after me and "my cohorts" is ridiculous. We aren't, at least I am not, worth maligning someone like hooks.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

18. Good lord, you're all over the place

Quite frankly, the transference, even for you, is stunning.

I posted an article about someone criticizing Beyonce, and you want to derail it into something about white privilege and now rape. Because a) that's what you do and b) you really don't want to get into a thread slamming Beyonce, because you know it won't end well for you. It's not low hanging enough fruit. That's why the smoke screens and subterfuge are now coming out of the playbook.

[BainsBane]

22. You posted a piece attacking feminists and comparing hooks to O'Reilly

without even bothering to figure out who bell hooks is. She deserves far better.

I don't have any issue with Beyoncé. Why would I slam her? I have never even mentioned her except to say that unlike Miley Cyrus she has talent. Perhaps you could stop assuming you know what I think about an issue before asking me?

(Also, just an FYI: My writing method is such that I always go back and re-edit after I hit post. I understand it's not the most desirable method for a message board, but it's how I write in general so do it here as well. Therefore if you read the post right away you won't see it in its finished form. That is to say I added additional text to the last post (and others) you likely missed, and you may find them relevant to the discussion. )

[BainsBane]

23. Moreover, you don't even bother to see what hooks actually said

examine the context or overall argument. You just pluck some crap from HuffPo and use that to condemn a major African American feminist figure.

[liberalhistorian]

27. Wow. Your real

"love" for women is just shining right through here, isn't it?

Your uncalled-for rudeness and unilateral dismissal of hooks shows who you are, and it ain't pretty. And how dare we not just fall all over Beyonce! Sheesh.

[Comrade Grumpy]

33. She was always a big draw at the bookstore I worked in in Washington, DC.

Vertigo Books in Dupont Circle.

It was owned by a white progressive couple from Wisconsin, but it was the black political book store. Bell Hooks appeared there three or four times when I was working there. She always drew a big crowd, and she liked joshing with me. She was a bit of flirt.

She's no Bill O'Reilly.

[BainsBane]

34. Thank you

That was really my only point: of course one can and should think critically about hooks', and all, arguments, but disagreeing with her on Beyonce doesn't mean she is akin to O'Reilly.

The SNL video below wins the thread anyway.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. Famed?

First time I've ever heard of Dr. Bell.

[LeftyMom]

8. Here's the whole talk.

I haven't listened to it yet, but I'm sure it's interesting and well worth one's time. I always find bell hooks thought provoking and worthwhile even if I don't agree with her point. Janet Mock is also amazing. I'm not familiar with the other presenters.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

10. Beyonce had no control as to whether she'd pose in her undies?

Yeah, that's *totally* believable.

[KittyWampus]

15. She may agree to being used and represented in that fashion… but what if she hadn't agreed

to be depicted in her underwear and other provocative outfits and states of undress over the years? Doing so certainly helps her career.

Part of the issue is what degree her success exists only because she allows herself to be used in a particular way.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

25. Doesn't it help all their careers, save for a few who don't go that route?

The two I'm thinking of are Adele and Lorde (there might be others, but beyond headlines, I don't keep up with pop stars). Madonna opened the floodgates around when, 1984? Since those early MTV years we've been "treated" to Britney, Beyonce, Rihanna, Miley, Katy, Nicki, etc. I don't consider any of them to have truly impressive voices. But for Britney, I'd say all of these women are in control. Kim Kardashian is another one. She's perhaps the most "successful" no-talent of our time (in my world, ass selfies aren't a measure of talent). Is she being used, or is she happily putting it out there for fame and fortune? Lady Gaga is supposedly a gifted pianist and vocalist -- is that what propelled her to super-stardom, or was it the pasties and meat dress?

JLo's rise has been interesting. I remember seeing her in "Anaconda" way back when. While an attractive woman, there's been quite a bit of lightening up and tweaking over the years.



Corporate America decided it was time for a Latina mega-star, and mega-star she is. Not that she didn't work hard and doesn't have a keen business acumen, but aren't these symbiotic relationships?

Are these women being used? Or do they see a niche and go for it? I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the whole pop phenomenon. Wow, Grace Jones just popped into my head ("Slave to the Rhythm&quot so I did a quick Wiki and found this:

The song's lyrics are interpreted in various ways; as telling about slavery in Afro-American history ("Axe to wood in ancient time/Man machine, power line/Fires burn, hearts beat strong/Sing out loud the chain gang song.&quot or referring to the music industry and its exploitation of musicians.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_to_the_Rhythm_(song)

It's an interesting topic. But I think I'll go listen to some Neko Case now.

[KittyWampus]

13. O'Reilly isn't fit to exist on the same planet as bell hooks. Thanks for bringing this round table

to my attention. I look forward to listening to the entire thing.

But then, I genuinely enjoy expanding my horizons and hearing arguments I may or may not agree with.

[Orrex]

17. He's just mad because no one asked him to pose for Time in his underwear

[KittyWampus]

20. I know you are a master of snark, but you inadvertently pointed to bell hooks argument.

have a nice day!

[Orrex]

21. LOL

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

28. Thanks

I didn't need that visual.

[JJChambers]

14. Let's promote women by attacking a powerful woman

Right.. Smacks of jealously. Go Beyoncé!

[1000words]

16. LOL ... This should keep DU busy for a while.

[KittyWampus]

19. the shame is, there are legitimate issues mentioned but people are going to superficially

take shots at whomever they decide deserves it… Beyonce or bell hooks.

[boston bean]

24. Nuance and understanding what is actually being said isn't everyone's strong suit.

That much is obvious.

I'm not going to get dragged into a bunch of people who not only want to try and paint feminism in a bad light, but to use two strong, intellectual black females to do it, and comparing one to Bill O'Reilly.... Bluck..

[chervilant]

29. What?!?

I guess Loofah O'Lielly has a new ally.

Why do you make this derisive and insupportable statement?!?

You may disagree with this preeminent feminist, but snarkily linking her to Bill O'Reilly is ridiculous.

[951-Riverside]

30. Someone needs to alert The Beygency on this heretic pronto!

[rocktivity]

35. DING DING DING! WorseBeforeBetter and KittyWampus, you're our grand prize winners!

Last edited Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:14 AM - Edit history (12)

WorseBeforeBetter:
Madonna opened the floodgates around when, 1984? Since those early MTV years we've been "treated" to Britney, Beyonce, Rihanna, Miley, Katy, Nicki, etc. I don't consider any of them to have truly impressive voices. But for Britney, I'd say all of these women are in control.

KittyWampus:
(Being) depicted in her underwear and other provocative outfits and states of undress over the years...certainly helps her career...

(To) what degree (does) her success exist only because she allows herself to be used in a particular way(?)

To which I'd like to add what I wrote in the DU thread I started about Beyonce's Time cover:

Why SHOULDN'T Beyonce "come half dressed?" Coming half dressed is the way she BECAME "influential!"

...(I)t (made) perfect sense to feature more of Beyonce's body...her "influence" was GENERATED BY her body.

MTV opened the floodgates with Madonna, drenching us in the notion that you don't need impressive vocals OR impressive music if you have impressive bodies, impressive wardrobes, impressive cinematography, and impressive publicists. Madonna started out as a "boy toy," and was last seen putting swastikas in her videos to generate attention.

There are two big disadvantages to being a video pop tart sensation. One is that sensations wear off, forcing you to stay competitive by placing a premium on evolving visually rather than artistically. (Otherwise you end up dead in the water -- and ripe to be traded in for a younger model.) And, of course, you also have to put up with being seen as a blight on women who are striving to be seen as "serious" about their work.

Consequently, I find Hook's talk of terrorism, imperialism, anti-feminism and visual assault to be the equivalent of swatting a fly with a heat-seeking missile. She's right about the capitalist patriarchy of the entertainment business being the root of the problem, but she's wrong to see it as the exclusive burden of black women. Its commandments are "Sex sells" and "Controversy sells" and "Do unto others as others have done unto others," none of which is news to Madonna, Britney, Miley, Katy, et cetera (Did you forget Lady Gaga, WorseBeforeBetter?).

They and Beyonce are just doing what it takes to maintain their fame, fortune and recording contracts. I don't believe they're interested in doing the alternative. And as for "control," I think it's safe to conclude that Miley is more interested in being the next Madonna than the next Adele!


rocktivity