If everyone was bell hooks that world would be a better place

I think if everyone would start their day with “What would bell hooks do?” things would be great, rainbows, hypoallergenic kittens, etc. hooks wrote a piece, “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In” for feministwire. First, let’s take a minute to talk about how fucking awesome bell hooks is. If you haven’t read everything she has ever written, stop reading this blog, and go read all the things. Her thoughts are far more valuable than mine. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Same page? Gladness. hooks is not impressed by the Sheryl Sandberg phenomenon. Most of you are familiar with the whole, Lean In thing. I have my skepticism about the whole thing because Sandberg favors working with the while male CEOs, which is counter to my understanding of feminism as being anti-oppressive. Specifically, this sort of alliance comes at the expense of our peers in the class struggle and people of color. Feminism means to engage in the struggle for equity for all people and to seek to end oppression. But as I said before, why engage with me when we can engage with hooks.

hooks begins by point out Sandberg did what a lot of women do, which is to distance themselves from feminism while believing that feminism is kind of over because, we won. After all, we can vote and go to school. However, hooks has this to say:

“Although Sandberg revised her perspective on feminism, she did not turn to towards primary sources (the work of feminist theorists) to broaden her understanding. In her book, she offers a simplistic description of the feminist movement based on women gaining equal rights with men. This construction of simple categories (women and men) was long ago challenged by visionary feminist thinkers, particularly individual black women/women of color. These thinkers insisted that everyone acknowledge and understand the myriad ways race, class, sexuality, and many other aspects of identity and difference made explicit that there was never and is no simple homogeneous gendered identity that we could call ‘women’ struggling to be equal with men. In fact, the reality was and is that privileged white woman often experience a greater sense of solidarity with men of their same class then with poor white women or women of color.

“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 imperialists white supremacist capitalist patriarchy need not be challenged. And she makes it seems that privilege white men will eagerly choose to extend the benefits of corporate capitalism to white women who have the courage to ‘lean in.’ It almost seems as if Sandberg sees women’s lack of perseverance as more the problem that systemic inequality. Sandberg effectively use her race and class power and privilege to promote a narrow definition of feminism that obscures and undermines visionary feminist concerns.”

Amazing. This is the problem with so much. Sandberg isn’t aiming to end oppression or distance women from the patriarchy, but instead, Sandberg’s goal is to engage with the patriarchy and work within it. Naturally, Sandberg is a big hit with white men in power, shocking I know. We can’t dismantle the patriarchy while we work within it…masters’ tools people, masters’ tools. Now, I am a fan of working within some structures such as the political system because if we don't the state systematically strips us of our rights in a very Atwood way if left unchecked. And dismantling the patriarchy, which is an oppressive structure for everyone, is a goal of feminism. hooks  rightly points out Sandberg never actually addresses who leans in, woman’s race and class is never identified, though it can be deferred. We’re clearly looking at white women of middle and upper class. If in fact Sandberg’s women are a small group of women like her than can we apply her message to all women? Should we want to? I would agree no. Sandberg’s message won’t be applicable to domestic workers for example. After Sandberg’s book came out a lot of people asked: lean into what? After all Sandberg at no point encourages her patriarchal while male peers to change their system or the structures that encourages disparities.

hooks stressed that Sandberg brings no new ideas to the table, but Sandberg also doesn’t create a situation where solidarity between women can develop:

“It is these true-life stories that expose the convenient lies underlying of her assertions that as more women are at the top, all women will benefit. She explains: ‘Conditions for all women will improve when there are more women in leadership roles giving strong and powerful voice to their needs and concerns.’ This unsubstantiated truism is brought to us by a corporate executive who does not recognize the needs of pregnant women until it’s happening to her. Is this a case of narcissism as a potential foundation for female solidarity? No behavior in the real world of women relating to women proves this to be true. In truth, Sandberg offers no strategies for building of feminists solidarity between women.”

I find myself asking this question a lot: how does solidarity develop within groups or between groups where there are a lot of factors playing out? Anyone have a solution? No worries, me either except my standard: solidarity doesn’t necessarily mean that the issue at hand has to impact you, instead solidarity means standing with others even when you might not directly benefit. But how do we develop and build solidarity? But I digress.

hooks discusses Sandberg’s perpetuation of the myth that we can all be anything we want to be if we choose it without any acknowledgement of institutions and social constructs that may disproportionately impact specific groups:

“Mass media (along with Sandberg) is telling us that by sheer strength of will and staying power, any woman so inclined can work hard and climb the corporate ladder all the way to the top. Shrewdly, Sandberg acknowledges that not all women desire to rise to the top, asserting that she is not judging women who make different choices. However, the real truth is that she is making judgments about the nature of women and work—that is what the book is fundamentally about. Her failure to confront the issue of women acquiring wealth allows her to ignore concrete systemic obstacles most women face inside the workforce. And by not confronting the issue of women and wealth, she need not confront the issue of women and poverty. She need not address the ways extreme class differences make it difficult for there to be common sisterhood based on shared struggle and solidarity.”

So what is Sandberg leaving out: living wage, equal pay, healthcare, paid sick leave, etc. But is it her fault, yes, but can we hold her accountable to care about things that don’t impact her? I think so, but I also think this is where we can clearly see that Sandberg’s feminism isn’t feminism because it intentionally or unintentionally excluded women of color and women in poverty. Insert, comment underlining the importance of intersectionality. However, how is Sandberg’s assertion that women at the top can make it better for women at the bottom?

“It should surprise no one that women and men who advocate feminist politics were stunned to hear Sandberg promoting her trickle-down theory: the assumption that having more women at the top of corporate hierarchies would make the work world better for all women, including women on the bottom. Taken at face value, this seem a naïve hope given that the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchal corporate world Sandberg wants women to lean into encourages competition over cooperation.”

hooks brilliance intimidates me. That said, this quote is spot on, you can’t assume the betterment of conditions for all people when you push capitalist ideology especially within the patriarchy. The patriarchy thrives in capitalism and thus the corporate world, so we really shouldn’t be striving to be successful in the corporate world, but instead work to improve the conditions for those laboring for the success of capitalism at the expense of people.

Finally, I want to touch on hooks’ assertion that individually Sandberg isn’t a threat to feminism. However, because conservative white men have decided to embrace Sandberg’s feminism, because it is wholly unthreatening, un-revolutionary, and not feminist, and they aim to re-frame feminism in this image. hooks said:

“Had 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. The model Sandberg represents is all about how women can participate and ‘run the world.’ But of course the kind of world we would be running is never defined. It sounds at time like benevolent patriarchal imperialism. This is the reason it seemed essential for feminist thinkers to respond critically, not just to Sandberg and her work, but to the conservative white male patriarchy that is using her to let the world know what kind of woman partner is acceptable among elites, both in the home and in the workplace.”

Sandberg is using feminist language as a tool to cover her commitment and dedication of western cultural imperialism, which is to say dedication to the patriarch, white supremacy, and capitalism all of which are interlocked. Damn right. See I don’t dislike Sandberg, I’ve fairly indifferent to her. Sure she might be saying some positive things, but mostly she is arguing for a promotion of ideals that do resonate with me. But then she was embraced and suddenly everywhere, at which we start to see the problems.