The Feminist Orchestra Bookclub discussion

The thread to chat all about our March/April 2018 book Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics.

You can start sharing your thoughts and feelings on the book at any point in your reading experience. As this is non-fiction it is difficult to determine whether it is possible to spoil anything but if in doubt just use this text to keep any spoilers hidden unless expressly opened by another member to read: <*spoiler*>This is the text that will be hidden.<*/spoiler*> (remove the asterixes*)

I can't wait to get the book club up and running again with all of you and hear what you have to say about our first book.

I'm really excited to be a part of this, and these are all books I've never heard of.

I haven't really ever searched out feminist reads before, and don't read non fiction often or at all, but I'm keen to know more and get a bit more educated on the subject.

Not sure how to feel about it yet, but will give it ago, I'm super interested in Trainwreck and Brick Lane!

I think I'll try to find the audio book! Anyway I can't wait

One of my focuses in school is Women's and Gender Studies so the fact that I haven't yet read this essential and inspiring book is blasphemy! Thanks for giving me another opportunity to pick it up finally.

Éliane wrote: "I think I'll try to find the audio book! Anyway I can't wait"

I've just got the audiobook of audible ^_^

My copy arrived yesterday! Can’t wait to get stuck in and to hear everyone’s interpretations 😄

I just finished watching the video introducing this and off to order the next few books. Very excited!

Just finished reading it. 2 stars. Here is the link to my humble review of the book as a white Christian cisgendered heterosexual male capitalist. I know most here are probably going to disagree, so be trigger warned :-)

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Just borrowed it from my university’s library, hoping to get stuck in soon.

I couldn't find a copy at my library, so while I'm still searching, I'm making do with a biography of Mary Wollstencraft, a pioneer of (white) feminism.
Hope I get bell hooks soon

I downloaded it from audible which made it 7.99 if that helps anyone and I've just started listening. So far it seems like a really good primer/intro to feminism, which I'm pleased about but it's probably too soon to start rating it aha.

Clare wrote: "I couldn't find a copy at my library, so while I'm still searching, I'm making do with a biography of Mary Wollstencraft, a pioneer of (white) feminism.
Hope I get bell hooks soon"

That's awesome! We have two months to read it, so don't worry if you can't find a copy right away :)

*NB, Jean has already started because she's a teacher's pet, but I won't be picking it up for a few weeks myself, so no one feel pressured! We're all reading at our own pace :D

Lauren wrote: "That's awesome! We have two months to read it, so don't worry if you can't find a copy right away :)"

I didn't realise it was two months. I should pay attention more.

Lauren wrote: "*NB, Jean has already started because she's a teacher's pet, but I won't be picking it up for a few weeks myself, so no one feel pressured! We're all reading at our own pace :D"

Aha I'm too keen for my own good.

Completely agree though, there is PLENTY of time ^_^

The twitter chat at the end of march won't require you to have read it either, it will just be a general chat about themes related to the book.

I've just finished listening to the audio - it's only about 4.5 hours long, which zipped by! The narrator is very clear and speaks at a good pace, in case that's something people are worried about.

Will have to make some notes now or I'll have forgotten it by the time the Twitter chat rolls around...

Hello everyone!
I've just started reading it (I'm probably not even 20 pages in) and I've already had to go over some sentences again and highlight them.
As a newbie in feminist literature, I'm super glad I found Jean's book channel and this book club! Looking forward to the discussions!

My copy arrived at the local library yesterday & I just picked it up. Looking forward to this group so much!

I started reading it from yesterday and I plan to read only one small chapter 1 day, because I want to highlight many things! It’s too soon to say that I like this book but I do :) although I call myself a feminist for as long as I remember but I’ve never read like a theory type of book before, and I think it’s a good start :)

I've just started it properly today and I'm already drawing parallels to other accessible intersectional feminist theory texts I've read recently. It's interesting to see how inclusively feminism is defined by these feminist icons in contrast with how narrowly much of the general public seem to view it.
I think I'll be taking it one chapter at a time and making notes like Meonicorn. Can't wait to discuss! :)

Just picked my copy up at the library. I've only ever read a couple excerpts of bell hooks' work and I've never done a book club before, so I'm excited!

I'm so excited about this! I borrowed a copy from the library and I am so looking forward to it! I don't think I've ever been part of a bookclub, even if it's online! Can't wait to hear the discussion!

I feel like this is going to be my new go to intro to feminism book recommendation, I've just passed half way ^_^.

Bought an audible copy today! cant wait to start. :) :)

Ahh I’m so glad the group is running again! Thank you Jean and Lauren! My copy should be with me within the next few days. Really looking forward to reading it, and to the discussions to follow :)

Interestingly, I attended a mini lecture about the importance of feminism in the university - and the neoliberal university system - yesterday in which the lecturer quoted bell hooks’s ‘Teaching to transgress’. Before this week, I’d heard bell hooks’s name but hadn’t encountered her work!

I have just read the first six chapters. I feel like this is a book perfect for people looking for an introduction to feminism, with its short chapters and precise language and examples, but it is also a great read for people who are already familiar with feminism and feminist theory. I have marked up, commented in the margins and written down so many quotes in my book!
There are a few ideas in there that really resonated with me and that have got me thinking:
I first encountered feminism and feminist thought when I went to university. I grew up in rural surroundings (Germany), with mostly working class people. Whenever I go back to visit, the discussion often stirrs to feminism. I feel like there is a curiosity but at the same time a total aversion to feminism. I think there are several reasons for that but I think one of them is definitely something bell hooks is talking about in her chapter 4 (in my edition pg. 21 ff.), where she is talking about the increasing academization and institutionallization of feminism and the consequences of that development, positive and negative. I have heard people say that they cannot afford feminism or that is not for them. And when they said that it is not for them, they meant usually that they have the impresson it is something for academics or young people. I think that is something I would like to read up on more, learn more about and maybe even find ways to address that. (If you have any recommendations for further reading material, I'd love to hear them)
I am really looking forward to reading the rest of the book.
Are there any parts that have really resonated with you?

I've never heard that response where people think feminism is "unaffordable". It's interesting since feminism doesn't really have any material trappings and started as a grassroots, community support group sort of thing before being "legitimised" by academia, but I guess that's all some people may see now. I definitely have heard the idea that feminism is only for an "educated class" and only those women seem to "whine" about it and a worrying further separation of women's solidarity forms when people act as though feminists are kicking up a fuss for no reason because they're just bored academics. I spent too much of International Women's Day thinking about how a friend's friend (a woman) was posting on her facebook that "it's international women's day and IDGAF" and right under that in my news feed was the protests in Spain talking about how some women in domestic work are raped on the job and there is little to no recourse for them then below that was an article about a woman in India who had sterilised herself without telling her husband and it just made the flippant comment from that friend's friend feel really sad and ignorant and privileged... And I can't help but feel like it fits this promotion of conflict between women. A message to men: "I'm not like those other girls; I'm one of the cool ones. I don't moan about stuff. Please validate me." Maybe I shouldn't interpret it like that, but it's hard not to. And saying "but the effort of this movement is for you and everyone else as well" is super condescending so...what is there to do but continue trying to change things for the better and hope that the desire to compete ebbs away in the new social climate that we create I guess?

One thing that had a big impression on me was when she spoke about feminism being "anti-sexist" while the media focussed on one demographic within feminism and pushed the idea of it being simply "anti-men" and that assertion not being significantly challenged. Understandably, at the time it sort of did feel that way as women, who benefitted far less from sexist society suffered more under it even though men suffered too but to a(n arguably) lesser extent, but that has meant that less effort was put into fully bringing men into the feminist movement at the beginning which has opened the door to MRAs and other backlash to feminist progress.. It feels like not being inclusive enough and seeing early enough how sexist practice negatively affects everyone has created a frustrating backlash that unnecessarily pits men and women against each other AND bolsters the gender binary in doing so.

There are totally legitimate causes for feminism, that most non-feminist agree with being worthy causes, but feminism offers the wrong solutions and all too often focuses on the wrong issues. That is why people shy away, not because they are against anything women. If feminism would be more attractive, feminists should run away from their identity politics, class structures, and groupthink. Forget about blaming the mythical "patriarchy" and move toward the idea of free-market capitalism. Start empowering women to choose their paths with care so that they become happy rather than try to force an equality of outcome with the other sex as a stated goal. Fight for justice. Embrace meritocracy, and accept the outcome. Right now, feminism excludes the majority of the world by default and thus is not for everybody. Right now feminism is simply on the wrong path, and that is why people won't sell their souls for it. It is not about feminism being for the "educated class", it is about the feminist "educated class" having bad and wrong ideas and that people notice.

Wow. There is so much to unpack there from false ideas that we live in a meritocracy (we don't) to the implication than free-market capitalism is somehow going to fix the problems it is responsible for (it won't). I'd suggest reading 23 Things They Don't Tell You about Capitalism or Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? to unpack a little bit of that, but I wonder if that won't make a difference to your stance considering how you seem to have misunderstood the entirety of bell hooks' points in Feminism Is For Everybody. Some people are against feminism is because they don't understand it and they don't understand that it is needed and how beneficial to them or, importantly, how it has already helped them and they embrace its achievements without realising those achievements are the direct products of feminist action. A lot of people interpret progressive movements fighting against inequality in general as something that will take things away from them and give to "other" people who somehow don't deserve it or deserve to be in a lesser position because they can't imagine that a change of structure will see them in a more positive place. Some men fear that feminism will take something away from them and give it to women who "haven't worked for it" even though it will free men more as well and women's work is consistently devalued. Some men revel in the inequality because it privileges them. Others don't notice the inequality because it privileges them. Financially more privileged people fear that their money will be taken away and given to "lazy scroungers" when socialist policies come in to balance financial inequality without realising that they also have nothing compared to a corrupt elite who is using that middle-class paranoia to help keep the exploitation in place to the detriment of most people on this planet.
I would suggest reading the book again really carefully to actually see what is and isn't being said. This system is not working very well for most people. It requires changes. We won't get anywhere if we continue to only privilege a small section of society. That is not to say they don't work hard too.. But do you seriously think that most other people outside of that small group that we see succeeding (in a system that clearly has had a lot of work put in to privilege that small group) are just not trying or incapable??

Nicole wrote: "Wow. There is so much to unpack there from false ideas that we live in a meritocracy (we don't) to the implication than free-market capitalism is somehow going to fix the problems it is responsible..."

Thanks for writing this Nicole

I did not say we lived in a meritocracy, I implied it as something to embrace, something to work toward - and the only system that seems to allow that is capitalism, a system that rewards merit(instead of taxing it and redistribute it according to need - and that is exactly what socialism is doing). Thanks for book tips. I've heard about both those books so I will read them in time - although I'm suspect they are misunderstanding what is meant by "free market capitalism"(that is, laissez-faire, and thus only discuss our current form of cronyism - that I would criticize as well). And, please, don't tell me that I misunderstand bell hooks - I profoundly disagree, I do not misunderstand(pardon my assertiveness). I do not disagree because I believe it is not beneficial to me, I disagree because I believe it is not beneficial to anybody(with exception of the causes that are valid). I do not want to make a big fuzz about it, but since the theme was into why people don't go feminism, I shipped in my two cents. You are probably right that "some men"(although, it also is a lot of women who are not feminists), do not understand, are afraid, think it will take away from them, because they have privileges to protect etc. But, I, who listen to the people skeptical to feminism have found a common thread of understanding, disagreeing and on that basis rejecting feminism a much more prevalent stance. If one does not include this big group, one is explaining feminism to the wrong audience. So, it is an observation that is not taken into consideration - and the feminism movement expanding out of current ideology and focus more on common causes than fighting against a good ideology of individualism with a bad ideology of groupthink could do a helluva lot of good.

Actually, 23 Things is written by a capitalist and Capitalist Realism is written by a Marxist so I hoped it might give more balance as a suggestion in tandem than either of the works on their own. Free-market capitalism creates monopolies and privileges those who already have a foot in the door based on their ancestors' work and/or luck and not on their own merits. If we go further in that direction, we will get more of the same. My point that some men feel feminism may take something away from them is not to say that some women are not also conditioned to be sexist and misunderstand feminism. It was suggesting one of the reasons there is pushback from some men. I, who also listen to people skeptical to feminism, have found a common thread of people not understanding and disagreeing on the basis of complete misunderstanding. I've come across women saying that they could never be feminists because "it's all about being really girly, right? I don't even know how to curtsy" and others who have said things like "oh maybe feminists would like that film because it has lots of swearing it in"...which I think we can all agree are bizarre interpretations. A lot of people do still interpret feminism based on the media-promoted angle of it being "anti men" which bell hooks makes very clear is not the point and that that angle within feminist circles has only ever been a reactionary, minority viewpoint given a loudspeaker because it is inflammatory (great for headlines) and discredits the movement. I suppose "Feminists would rather everyone to be free from exploitation and oppression based on their genitalia" is not as sexy a headline as "Why do feminists hate men?" The focus on community is not groupthink, unless you also believe than any consensus ever reached by any group of people is "group think". As bell hooks discusses some of the disagreements within the movement–particularly in the earlier stages and divergence of thought and action between groups like reformist feminists and revolutionary feminists or even today as there is pushback from intersectional feminists to an emerging (opportunistic at worst/misguided at best) "white feminism", I think you would be hard pressed to earnestly suggest that feminists are all just perpetrators of groupthink. The collection of interviews and speeches by Angela Davis', Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement touches a little on why focussing on individuals is ineffective. Change doesn't happen because of individual leaders or even spontaneous key moments. We must consider the whole picture, we must consider society (which is, by nature, a group/groups of people). That does not make it "groupthink", but it does make it further reaching, more effective and more inclusive.

Thanks for a reasonable reply.

With groupthink, I do not mean anything other than the thinking that derives from the assumption that groups have rights, rather than individuals. That is, dividing people into groups (such as men/women, black/white, proletariat/bourgeoisie other small minority groups) and assigning them different sets of rules/rights, and it ends up with thinking about people as groups. On the outset, my generals feel is that feminists do exactly that (my opinion here comes from it being bad in politics in general). Because of this one ends up with stuff like compelled speech laws, that say that one has to, by law, use the pronoun desired to respect the wishes of a smaller group or person. This is a law that limits the fundamental right of freedom of speech by law to please one of a wish of a group.

Almost every(except the early ones, and a few outcasts) feminist movements have been strongly influenced by Marxism(based on my reading through Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction), and I applaud bell hooks for showing how some of them were wrong in some sense. It is an evolution in thought, yes, but she was unable to pinpoint the wrongs at Marxism(with its horrible history) tho, so her ideas seem to be more of the same core ideology. So, to throw your sentence back at you; "If we go further in that direction, we will get more of the same". Communist use to say "It was not real communism", and I kinda hear feminists add "It was not real feminism".

We agree that people do have "bizarre interpretations", and that is probably because most people do not think much of feminism in their normal life. Women are not oppressed in the west. When they do think of feminism they may do it on the basis of vagina hats on marches on television. I have seldom heard the argument of feminism being only anti-men, and never in the media that seems to me often naively pro-feminism(I'm from Norway, so go figure). So, we can probably agree that bell hooks book may clear up what feminism is, and the ones that believe that she is in the truth may become more aware or be swayed to become feminist, but she will not get through to the ones that are right or libertarian-leaning as easily because of the ideological bent the movement have.

To shorten up a bit I hid my answer to the capitalism part as a spoiler.
(view spoiler)[As regards to capitalism, you say "free-market capitalism creates monopolies", and this is wrong. There is not a free market if you can hold a monopoly because if a market is free a better product can and will be available if allowed. If there is a monopoly where the best product is sold for the best price, then good for us and good for the company. Today we have at best something that is a "free" market, and that is full of cronyism. Only a government can secure a monopoly by special grants, or by being a monopoly by themselves and banning private enterprise in sectors. Strip the government of the power to control markets, and you have a free one. I won't go much deeper into this, as this is not a thread about capitalism and probably won't go anywhere. (hide spoiler)]

Your back and forth comments just taught me a lot about feminism and people who are against it.

I also want to thank you both for having a civilised debate! It's been a very long time since I've seen such people with completely different opinions discuss it online without it turning into a bloodshed.

That said, I wonder why discussing feminism (which is essentially women asking to be treated as men are) turned into a discussion on capitalism 😅

And also, John, I can't keep but wondering why you joined a book club called 'The Feminist Orchestra' with your views of the matter?

Same to you, John.

The use of the term "group think" is confusing in that case because that's not what that term means; it's more akin to people being sheep and going along with an idea because individuals in the group want to fit in with the whole and so don't speak up when they otherwise should. More to the point, if what you mean to say is that we shouldn't divide people into groups, then what society is doing that now by separating a small minority of largely white, able-bodied, heterosexual, men and putting their needs above other people needs to be reversed.. But it's not actually about marking out groups like that anyway and I feel therein lies a misinterpretation and is what bell hooks talked about when she mentioned people seeing feminism as anti-men (i.e. against or for a certain group of people) when really it is against a system of thought: sexist oppression and exploitation which is not only the sexist oppression and exploitation of women but also of men. However, men also tend to have more benefits from the same system that also harms them than women who tend to have fewer benefits from that system so, when generalising, the talk tends to be around "men vs. women" which is useful as a shorthand, but clumsy. Further to the talk about groups and whether or not to pay attention to them, sometimes you have to. Some groups have been routinely singled out and attacked and work does need to go into reversing that by singling them out in order to redress the balance. If we take aim at certain groups and actively hold them back and then act like nothing ever happened, we make the problem worse.
I'm not sure why people think it's rude to repeatedly call someone by the wrong name after the person has introduced themselves, but not rude to repeatedly call someone by the wrong gender marker after that person has said what they are. The reason seems to be entitlement at first glance–the person adamant on using the wrong gender marker to define another person thinks that their definitions are more valid than the person those definitions are being applied to. But I think there is also some misunderstanding around the science of biology. There is sooo much to go into with that and I feel, again, there are lots of books that go into far more detail than I will.

In that case, I'm not sure if you mean to say that the laissez-faire cronyism you talk about criticising is just as valid to call itself the capitalism you simultaneously support. I'm not sure this strain of the discussion is going anywhere though.

To suggest that women are not oppressed in the west, is to be distracted by clever capitalist construction of market feminism. I suppose that lines up with the idea that western women are moaning about nothing and that's worrying for progress when sexist injustice happens everywhere in the world. You can be oppressed even as you are able to vote and walk around ostensibly freely (while enduring sexist remarks as a pre-teen in baggy clothing and being steered away from certain activities because of your gender...which is the very, very least of it). Feminism is certainly hampered by the idea that "girl power!" is all we need and that women being involved in things automatically make it feminist, which is simply not so. This is the issue that has come up when PETA was accused of sexist advertising to further the animal rights cause and their response was "we can't be sexist because most of us are women". bell hooks' response would be "Of course you can be sexist. We are all conditioned to be sexist and it must be actively unlearned. You are not anti-sexist simply by virtue of being a woman." A similar issue crops up when politicians like Hilary Clinton or Marine LePen (who are not at all the same!! and I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm making the unfair comparison of them politically) use pseudo-feminist rhetoric for votes.

Haha you're absolutely right, this isn't a thread about capitalism and I don't want to go on too much in that direction so I'll just say this: free market capitalism's end goal is monopolies. That is the contradiction of the capitalist system. Monopolies are prevented thanks to intervention that reverses or resets a little bit of the freedom of the market, but the end goal is naturally monopolies. Better products are not made because of free market capitalism. Marketable products are made based on the (often manufactured) desires of those with resources. Needs are, therefore, being left unfilled by capitalism. People like Martin Shkreli are able to capitalise on drugs for terminally ill patients because the market is not catering the needs of the people. If we are living in a system that is not fulfilling our needs, then what is anyone working towards but a hellhole not worth living in? Obviously most markets (including "free" markets) are not completely free and few people (even free market capitalists) don't want them to be because not only would the end goal indeed be monopolies if there were no intervention, but also because most civilised work systems don't have toddlers working heavy machinery–there are laws preventing that...which means that market isn't totally free. And we can, hopefully, agree that is good.

Sophie wrote: "Your back and forth comments just taught me a lot about feminism and people who are against it.

I also want to thank you both for having a civilised debate! It's been a very long time since I've s..."

Haha it's so easy to go onto tangents of other topics! And I completely agree, good discussion is definitely more interesting and productive and I certainly find I learn a lot more from it too.

I must admit though, I'm also curious about your views on feminism and why you decided to join us considering what you've asserted or implied so far, John. But it's been interesting talking with you for sure.

I hope to learn more about what I initially distanced myself from, to pinpoint where I agree and where I disagree and why. A few years back I talked with a feminist, and with me disagreeing with her she added as a last remark that I had read too little of it. True that. Not that I believed my opinion was going to change too much but I had to admit to not being very well versed in feminist thinking. Also, I have a younger sister that is feminist and have opposing views on many matters - and I respect that even though I'm not sure she knows it. So, I began about a year ago to read feminism more systematically, and since then I've read over 40 books on the issue from every side and time. I stumbled upon this group and thought it would be nice to read something and then read the reactions from others(presumably mostly feminists, that probably would not agree all themselves on everything), especially since it began with a book I just had bought myself. Also, the description said, "All engagement is welcome though". And as a bonus, in the jungle of feminist literature - find out what seem to be the ones to read.

Discussions about feminism seem to diverge into politics and ideology on my part because that is the world I read most from. Feminism, like any other movement, have those underlying ideas and premises. I do apologize if it went it off course from the discussion about the theme in the book...

I feel a little bit like an outsider here though, so I think I'll lay low in the future(hate to be that guy who pops up in every discussion with his opposing views) and rather follow the discussion than stirring it up.

I respect your endeavour, John. And I agree: everything is political. It's inevitable that the discussion can/will go into those directions though I think when we start to focus solely on political theory and move away from its relationship to feminism, we got away from the point of the original discussion.
I don't think you need to lay low necessarily if you're not being intentionally antagonistic or rude. After all, without confronting (respectful) opposing views, there is the danger of the discussion only being a lot of nodding heads and pats on backs. I don't think either of us intended for you to think we were saying you shouldn't say anything, but it's just a curiosity and finding out why you decided to join the group was interesting as well.
I wouldn't want you to think of this group as being a monolithic authority on feminism that thinks with one mind either though. There will be lots of differing views among the group (not all of whom will speak up about all of their thoughts) and it does take a lot of work to see all the facets of thought and which ideas are the prevailing ones, which are outdated, which were relevant but aren't anymore, which have evolved and how... I would suppose that, as long as you are respectful and...well, not a troll, I'm sure you will be welcome to further discussion.

Loads to discuss, but I'll just try to stick to one thing for this post.

John, I read your review before I read the book. And I read the book specifically with your review in mind (and bookmarked to refer back to.)

I hope you don't "lay low." It's important that we not segment ourselves in this way. One of the most basic things about feminism to me is "should we all be afforded equal opportunity?" Most people would say "yes" but there's the rub -- do we agree on whether we are, in fact, afforded that opportunity? What does that phrase really mean, where the rubber hits the road, as they say?

Please everyone, whether you agree or disagree on any one point, continue to debate (not fight, but debate.) We can only move forward as the human race if we continue to engage and debate openly. If we all scuttle back to our corners, we get nowhere and build walls. This is why Janice in rural Germany hears feminism just isn't 'for' some people.

Feminism itself has devolved and evolved. There are many "waves" and many differing ideas within feminism itself, and bell hooks represents just one of thousands of thinkers on this topic. I've read bell hooks before, read a lot about her, and I would certainly call myself a feminist. But...

Even I have some problems with the way "feminism" is/has been portrayed. Do a web search on the definition or better yet - walk into a university level classroom, and you'll find it defined myriad ways. (I thought hooks was actually trying, in much of this book, to get to a place of simple definition. Do we agree with that definition? 100%? All of us?)

I -- as a feminist -- expect to disagree with other feminists. When we're talking to others, we have to know exactly what we mean when we use any term, especially if that term is the one being debated.

All I'm trying to say is that whether we are well-read or not, identify as feminists or not, are women or men, etc, we need all voices to get to a place of equality - whatever you want to call that. I'll assume that John is not opposed to basic equality. Please let me know if I'm wrong, John.

People attach all sorts of different meanings to different words. Many of them have been more harmful than helpful to the cause of equality for all groups, genders, races, identities...

Feminism has been defined in so many ways to be almost meaningless at times. Maybe first of all we need to define the word feminism, using this book, since that's what we're ostensibly discussing -- and decide if we agree with 100% of how hooks defines it. What about other feminist thinkers? How about the academics? How about the leaders of social movements? etc.

What exactly are we saying when we say "feminist"? What do you assume about me when I call myself that?

Even basic "equality" has stumbling blocks to get past so we can agree on what that means. It's a shame we have to define words in 2018, but we do if we're to have any sort of conversation, let alone argument, about it.

/soapbox

I liked your soap box, Ella.

I don't think it's a shame that we have to define words today or in any other time. As language and ideas evolve (and they naturally must unless nothing at all is changing or progressing in anyway which would mean something is wrong with society), definitions will change and must be looked at and reassessed.

I happen to like bell hooks' simple, one sentence definition of feminism: “Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression”. I have no problem with defining feminism that way. How that gets elaborated...I don't know, there may be quibbles. (I know of someone who extends this to animals and says you can only be feminist if you are also vegan because otherwise your feminism is speciesist, but obviously that is a pretty fringe view as far as I can tell.) There are things I do disagree with bell hooks on (and one issue I have with her perspective in particular that I haven't come across in this book yet), but obviously all feminists won't agree on everything the same way not all world leaders agree on everything, not all police officers agree on everything, not all movie critics agree on everything. There will still be certain main ideas all(/the vast majority) of feminists will agree on...and if we don't agree with the general consensus but still want to claim the label, we tend to find our niche and claim that for specificity. I might say "I'm an intersectional feminist" so that people (who know more about the esoteric lingo) will have more detail about the kind of ideas I might subscribe to. I find it odd when disagreement about ideology within feminist circles is treated like a hole in feminism when that is present in any ideology/movement/field/theory/anything involving people.

When someone says they are a feminist, I assume that, on some level, they care about a disparity in the way that men and women are treated. I feel that's a fair assumption. But the details of that can vary a lot.

A primer on feminism does indeed touch on a lot of elements. Equality is no bad place to begin.

Of course, I am for equality, so let's dive into the theory. I would state it most simply as equality under the law. This implies equality of opportunity, as far as is does not override the principle of equality under the law. The law is what protects our right to our own life, our right to our own property and our right to liberty(this view is stated in "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat). These three rights are the basis of our western human rights. Any law that defies this definition and breaks those principles is bad(although some may be necessary sometimes).

The equality I see feminist advocate is equity, or more clearly stated as equality of outcome, and it goes against the check Bastiat defined. To ensure outcome one has to use force and infringe on the rights of some other. If we keep it in the realm of simple gender dynamics, equity says that we should work and legislate so that there will be an equal amount of the two sexes in politics, in every workplace, equal pay in the paycheck etc.

This is hard for several reasons, one is that man and women are by nature different, on average differently distributed personalities, different goals in life and different interests in general. The other comes to defining what is equal work? How do we know who is doing the better job? What is the right pay? It's an impossible feat. Value is subjective. That is why, on a side note, some feminist are over the fence about saying that all differences in gender are social constructions - because by equalizing biology, they have a better case in equalizing outcome of our actions and to blame the unequal outcome on the patriarchy.

What early feminists fought for, was, on the other side, a fight of having equal opportunity - because they did not have the same access to own property, to vote, to work, to schooling, to legal rights etc. It is partly due to the nature of us as animals, whereas we before divided our work to what we did best because we had lesser options in a world we tried to tame. Then it changed. Some of our previous gender roles became obsolete when women were freed up to due to changes in societal structures. This is why Hans Rosling talked how the washing machine was such a huge revolution. A time consuming female role became nearly obsolete and freed up time for education. When women get educated they enter the workforce. Working women add to the income, and frees up men so that they can do more of the housework. We are still in this process. Societal structures had to change as a result of the adding to the collective knowledge we gained through history. Our knowledge evolved and with it came ideas, and those ideas became part of our culture. To understand how the development of the idea of individuality evolved, see "Inventing the Individual" by Larry Siedentop. When we had grasped individuality, we could begin considering the individual rights(men and women) that founded our western world. Now equality is guaranteed by law, culture is following.

Many feminists today, including bell hooks, believe that history has given us a patriarchy(almost like it is here now more present than ever), that male domination exists in every part of life still and that it hinders women to get ahead - that the opportunities are unequal from the get-go, that they are uneven even if the law is equal. They have thus found something to blame that is not rooted in a principle of equality under the law, but in a principle of equity with there being a "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy". So, with this as the base idea, equity as the principle, they have to override our right to our own life(because some are more privileged than others and that is wrong), our right to our own property(because some have less, and the ones that have more have it because of privilege) and our right to liberty(because we are doomed to fall under the privilege based on biological traits we cannot control, and thus we are in the wrong). I am not saying that there is no unwanted uneven oppression in society, I am only arguing that it should not be the base of one's ideology and that it is less a problem than feminists claim.

There is another reason why Marxism is attractive, and that is based on the "get-go" part. There is a belief that if we end the patriarchy, we not only remove income equality but we also remove the big gap between the top rich and bottom poor in the society and solve every problem. The goal is that everyone should have the right to begin their life on equal standings(an idea that the communist tried, but that failed). That is why Piketty's recommendation in Capital in the Twenty-First Century to solve the gap is to tax inheritance heavily so that it can be given to the poor(the rich leave more behind than poor). Although this is diverging into another economics thread, it is linked, and that is why feminists like Piketty.

These ideas began with the class definitions of Marx and his economics that was based on this type of class struggle. He argued that the worker was oppressed by the ones that gave them work, the oppressors, and that by this they had the right to seize the factory and equalize the outcome. In modern feminism, heavily influenced by Marx, the patriarchal system is the oppressor(often identified as the 1%, "the rich" or "white male capitalists"), and everyone not having the privilege under it is oppressed, and thus do they claim the right(or, claim it right) to equalize the outcome, to level the field, to fight the oppressor, to ruffle up the patriarchal structures, to reinterpret male-dominated history. One can not achieve that by means other infringing upon our basics rights, so feminism has a dislike towards those rights that built America.

When one has this in mind, reading bell hooks definition of feminism one can see that it is not simple at all. To "end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression" contains each a whole world of presuppositions both in what they are, how prevalent they are, and how to achieve the end of them. It cannot mean only what it says because even though I agree with the definition, my views are not accepted as valid under the feminist umbrella(because I oppose the ideology behind).

Men and women are not so different as you claim (which is partly why society has to work so hard to manufacture and assert the differences between them). There are several neurological studies that state that the differences between two men's brains is often more different than the the difference between a man and a woman's brain. The most prominent of the studies to claim this that I've come across (and the ones I've seen most often referenced) are one Tel Aviv study that took place a few years ago and an ongoing study (meant to span more than a decade) in Scotland which is the largest of its kind involving thousands of participants.
Talking about assuring outcomes, if you hold someone back from opportunities and then put them in the same situation as others who have had more opportunities, they will have to work harder than those who have had more opportunities. That is why equity is necessary.

Women and men are not "by nature different, on average differently distributed personalities, different goals in life and different interests in general". That is conditioned. That is why we see different behaviour between women of different nationalities and of men of different nationalities where women from some societies seem more "manly" by the standards of others and men from some countries will seem more "feminine" by other societies' standards. It's about how we are socialised. Why is it normal to see male friend holding hands and resting their heads in each others laps in some countries that are very homophobic when, in the west, that seems too intimate/effeminate for men? Because it's about socialisation and the norm for different societies. I've mainly read scientific articles about this and so don't have references on hand to give you but hopefully searching "Tel Aviv brain gender comparison study" or something along those lines and the same for Scotland will help you find the original papers. I'm still researching more on neurology but it is slow going as scientific papers take a really long time (for me) to get through and I have only found a few recent books that deal with the topic so far.

"The other comes to defining what is equal work? How do we know who is doing the better job? What is the right pay? It's an impossible feat. Value is subjective." If there two people flipping burgers and one is a woman and one is a man, they should be paid the same. This should be the same all the way up to the top tier of jobs. If a man gets paid more than a woman because he's doing a better job fine. No one can say anything to that. But when women are routinely getting paid less across the board, which they are, your assumption is that they're just not as good as men or don't work as hard. That's simply not true. It's bizarre as well to look at the reversal from school when girls seem to out perform boys until they enter the work force.
Assessing value in a company is not an impossible feat. There are markers and comparisons that companies can and do make of employees all the time. There are markers to determine what the job entails, whether or not the job is being fulfilled and what constitutes exceeding the tasks of the job. If two people have the same job title, their salaries should be in the same general area (irrespective of gender). If they are not, something odd is going on. If a group of people in a field are regularly being paid less, something odd is going on. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that they are somehow simply less capable or less hardworking. From neurology, we know that there is no significant difference between the brains of people of different genders or races that would inhibit performance.

It is not OK for one person's privilege to impinge on the rights of others. And being asked to be aware of one's privilege does not take away anyone's rights. I have not had my rights taken away because I'm away that I am privileged as an able-bodied heterosexual. I have not had my rights taken away because I have had a little bit skimmed off my wages to pay taxes so that society can help to ensure people's right to life isn't taken from them thanks to the support of welfare services. Men don't have their rights taken away because the company (an inanimate entity given personhood for capitalist convenience) has also paid its female employees what they are worth.

Throughout what you're saying but especially from "These ideas began...that built America", you really seem to be pitching feminism to be anti-male. You can probably tell from what I'd said above, that I don't agree with that stance at all (if that is actually what you are saying...it seems so). Reversing the "power" in a "taking back the factories" approach still involves oppression and still involves sexism. That's clearly not what bell hooks seems to be on about and it's not what I'm on about either. Giving people the rights they are entitled to does not mean taking rights away from those who oppress them because those people do not have the right to infringe on anyone else's rights in the first place. Freeing an abuse victim from an abusive situation is not infringing on an abuser's right to abuse. It is righting an imbalance that shouldn't have been in place in the first place. Making the abuse victim become the abuser is equally as wrong. (I could draw this out into a weird further analogy and say: ...But if the abuse victim now has broken legs, it is possible they will need extra assistance–a wheelchair and ramp, let's say–because they have been held back. Asking them to also make their way up the stairs the same as everyone else without assistance because that is "equal" would be cruel and unfair. And that is not being unfair to those who don't have broken legs.)

"It cannot mean only what it says because even though I agree with the definition, my views are not accepted as valid under the feminist umbrella(because I oppose the ideology behind)"
In that case, I think bell hooks' definition is still useful and interesting especially because people of opposing views can both agree to the words and because it requires picking apart of what both parties mean to see where the (very large) differences lie.

I feel like all this is only loosely based on the book at this point and is maybe better suited to a general "feminism: what is? how do? who is? how feel? what involved?" thread... ^^;; haha

Hi everyone! Have been loving the comments so far; you're absolutely right this is a place for us all to freely discuss our opinions and to disagree and debate in a constructive way. I would ask that we try to stick to topics that are specifically highlighted in this book for now, especially so that we can allow everyone to chip in with their two cents.

However, we will be having a twitter chat on 30th March prompted by the wider issues touched upon in this book. One of the things I've found interesting/challenging so far is the idea that your politics affect whether or not you can be feminist i.e. conservatism and feminism being mutually exclusive. I think there's a lot of discussion to be had around that topic and look forward to heraing all your interpretations!

So, I've just finished feminism is for everybody and I thought I would share some of my initial thoughts just coming out of it.

I'm slightly in awe of just how many topics bell hooks managed to cover in such a relatively short book. Although she wasn't able to go into massive amounts of detail on each individual subject I thought she did a really good job of demonstrating the wide of things covered by feminism and the importance of considering them all, in particular the importance of issues such as class and race and sexuality to any good feminist movement.

The first thing that struck and resonated with me from the offset was the discussion of the need to get rid of this idea of individualism in feminism, that it's not about making the current system work better for individuals who already have it alright in society so they can gain a little more power etc. but that it's about deconstructing the society that perpetuates strict gender roles and the oppression of women, all women. Although and I think this is somewhat touched upon near the end, that doesn't mean the end goal should overshadow the fight for smaller changes that will improve the lives of those currently suffering, I feel like this about all my political ideologies anyway, aim high but don't ignore what seem like small changes but could actually make a massive difference for others.

I definitely think this will become my new go to introduction to feminism recommendation as it feels like a really good overview.

I also personally enjoyed how unapologetic she was when it came to certain issues like the importance of being pro-choice and allowing all women the choice of what to do with their body when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, whether you personally would have one or not.

And lastly, for now, I also think she did a good job of differentiating between patriarchy and men and highlighting that feminism opposes patriarchy and sexism not men. Although patriarchy treats women as the inferior sex, everyone whether they identify as male, female or otherwise loses out under patriarchy and she reminded me of the importance of this for children when growing up. That always gets me.

Oh! And how could I forget aha, as an academic I absolutely love anything that argues for topics to move beyond academic spheres 💪

Agree, Nicole and Lauren - moved it here

Your thoughts Jean, they do the book justice and reflects it's good intent.

Looking forward to reading what the rest thinks and finds inspiring.

I have finished reading the book and I am stunned. I absolutely loved how Hookes covers all the sphere of lives that we never looked at. Feminism cannot be seen in parts. It has be be seen as whole. One cannot be feminist in one sphere and completely ignore it when it does not serve your purpose!

Also loved how the author provides solutions to make the movement successful. Feminism begins at home. Feminists are raised and not born!

Looking forward to the discussion on twitter!

Veena wrote: "I have finished reading the book and I am stunned. I absolutely loved how Hookes covers all the sphere of lives that we never looked at. Feminism cannot be seen in parts. It has be be seen as whole..."

I like that as a way of descriping her philosophy, that feminism has to be seen as a whole, you can't ignore it when it benefits you and embrace it when it helps you, I agree.

And that totally made me value Chimomanda Ngozi Adiche's Dear Ijeawele all the more for the raising a child feminist althoug it's directed towards adults. I'd love to hear if anyone has read any children's books dealing with issues of sexism and tollerence - ones they might consider feminist.