bell hooks’ Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In

bell hooks has got to be one of my favourite feminist thinkers. Actually, she might be my favourite, full stop. She’s freaking brilliant and constructs amazingly powerful sentences and paragraphs. Her writing is at once easy to read and understand, yet at the same time packed with meaning. She digs deep, as the title of her latest article suggests. I’ve just read that guest article over at the Feminist Wire which you can go read it, here. Seriously, go read it.

So first, two thoughts about this: One, you will note that every single time hooks talks about Sandberg’s “faux feminism” she never talks about Sandberg as a “faux feminist” nor accuses Sandberg of not really being a feminist. Take note internet feminists (and other social justice peeps), this is how you critique an idea without getting into name-calling wars. Reserve the name-calling for people who are beyond help and are horrible people. (Or if you’re a better person than I am, just don’t do the name-calling thing at all). But if you want to seriously critique someone’s opinions or ideas, then make sure you stick to talking about those ideas.

Second thought: Does anyone else see some interesting parallels between Sandberg’s faux feminism and the mainstream LGBT movement’s fixation on same-sex marriage? Both an appeal to the heteronormative, white supremacist, patriarchy to include a previously excluded group in an institution set up by the patriarchy. Both movements being ‘legitimized’ by recognition from the heteronormative, white supremacist, patriarchy. Both assuming a sort of trickle-down equality will work. Maybe I’ll write a longer article about this later.

Anyway, below I’m going to pick out some quotes from the article that I really liked. These are mostly in the order that they appear in the article, except that the first one is from the end because it’s my favourite. All the bits that are bolded were done by me for this:

The reality of feminist goals:

Importantly, whether feminist or not, we all need to remember that visionary feminist goal which is not a women running the world as is, but of women doing our part to change the world so that freedom and justice, the opportunity to have optimal well-being, can be equally shared by everyone – female and male.

Defining feminism:

Sandberg’s definition of feminism begins and ends with the notion that it’s all about gender equality within the existing social system. From this perspective, the structures of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy need not be challenged.

Challenging patriarchy:

No matter their standpoint, anyone who advocates feminist politics needs to understand the work does not end with the fight for equality of opportunity within the existing patriarchal structure. We must understand that challenging and dismantling patriarchy is at the core of contemporary feminist struggle – this is essential and necessary if women and men are to be truly liberated from outmoded sexist thinking and actions.

Sandberg’s lack of discussion about race:

Perhaps, even in the corporate world, imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy is ready to accept as many white women as necessary to ensure white dominance. Race is certainly an invisible category in Sandberg’s corporate fantasy world.

Sandberg’s individualism:

Of course, historically the best feminist manifestos emerged from collective consciousness raising and discussion. They were not the voice of one individual. Instead of creating a space of female solidarity, Sandberg exists as the lone queen amid millions of admires. And no one in her group dares to question how she could be heralded as the “voice of revolutionary feminism.”

Faux-feminism and Sandberg never mentioning money:

She comes across both in her book and when performing on stages as a lovable younger sister who just wants to play on the big brother’s team. It would be more in keeping with this image to call her brand of women’s liberation faux feminism. A billionaire, one of the richest women in the world, Sandberg deflects attention from this reality. To personify it might raise critical questions. It might even have created the conditions for other women to feel threatened by her success. She solves that little problem by never speaking of money in Lean In; she uses the word once.

Sandberg’s heteronormativity:

Sandberg’s convenient use of the word partner masks the reality that she is really speaking about heteronormative partnerships, and even more specifically marriages between white women and white men. She shares: “Contrary to the popular notion that only unmarried women can make it to the top, the majority of the more successful female business leaders have partners.” Specifically, though not directly, she is talking about white male husbands. For after telling readers that the most successful women at the top are partnered, she highlights the fact that “of the twenty-eight women who have served as CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies, twenty- six were married, one was divorced and only one was never married.”

The importance of intersectionality in creating female solidarity:

The movement highlighted the need for gender equity in the workforce –equal pay for equal work. This economic focus exposed the reality that race was a serious factor over-determining women’s relationship to work and money. Much feminist thought by individual visionary women of color (especially black women thinkers) and white female allies called for a more accurate representation of female identity, one that would consider the reality of intersectionality. This theory encouraged women to see race and class as well as gender as crucial factors shaping female destiny. Promoting a broader insight, this work lay the groundwork for the formation of genuine female solidarity – a solidarity based on awareness of difference as well as the all-too-common gendered experiences women share. It has taken many years of hard work to create basic understandings of female identity; it will take many more years for solidarity between women to become reality.

“Leaning in” and gender equality:

Since patriarchy has no gender, women “leaning in” will not automatically think in terms of gender equality and solidarity. Like the issue of money, patriarchy is another subject that receives little attention in Sandberg’s book and in her many talks. This is ironic, since the vision of gender quality she espouses is most radically expressed when she is delineating what men need to do to work for change.

Sandberg being used by patriarchal re-framing of feminism

Even though many advocates of feminist politics ere angered by Sandberg’s message, the truth is that alone, individually she was no threat to feminist movement. Had the conservative white male dominated world of mass media and advertising not chosen to hype her image, this influential woman would not be known to most folks. It is this patriarchal male dominated re-framing of feminism, which uses the body and personal success of Sheryl Sandberg, that is most disturbing and yes threatening to the future of visionary feminist movement.