Blog #6 - hooks Ch. 7/8/9

Question 1:

- I think the idea of having all classes of women actively able & involved in the feminist movement would have definitely impacted the feminist movement as we know it. In another part of the chapter, hooks explains that while those from the upper crust of social classes were looking for social equality in the ways that would put them into the workplace with men, there were women from lower socioeconomic statuses that were already working who would've loved to have the ability to stay at home (hooks, p. 38). If those who were already in the workforce were given media attention, I think that the idea of feminism as being "man-hating, women-lovers who are looking to just place themselves in men's work" would not have even come into anyone's ideas. Those women who were in the process of working already had the type of "equality" that women of higher social classes were looking for, and thus would have, I think, opened up people's minds in regards to what the femininst movement was actually about.
- I think by placing media attention on all women, in general, that there would have been more recognition of those women already working who were earning significantly less than the men they were working alongside. That recognition, I think, would have lead to a realization that women need equal pay raises - but would have also gained recognition for those who were working in the house, keeping up things while they're husbands were at an 8-5 job outside of the home.


Question 2:

- I think those women who were from, had familial ties within, or decended from the societies/cultures that were among those in which the rates of sexual discrimination and exploitations were the ones who were silenced by "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy". I think that if those women who were tied to the society or culture had been taken into consideration when the privileged women who were responsible for creating changes were in the process of changing the societies/cultures, they would have been able to (in a way) coach the changing-women in how to implement the changes without creating any societal repercussions or issues. If there had been a consideration for the society/culture in which the "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" changes were being inforced, I think a more socially acceptable solution would have been able to be found to implement the changes. 
- Furthermore, I really do think that taking the "other" into consideration would have lead to better connections and global interactions between other countries and the U.S. today. Instead of doing things the "American way", and enforcing our ideas and values without any second thought about how our society and culture are different from other areas of the world, there would be a more friendly vibe between the United States and the rest of the world - instead of the domineering, we-will-rule-all mentality that is, unfortunately, what the United States is known for.


Question 3:

- This example kinda hits close to home because even though my mom didn't stay home, and my dad was only stay-at-home until I was in 6th grade, my mom still gives him crap for not working those earlier years of me and my sister's lives. I know that this really gets at him - hence, probably why he decided to go back to school, and has been working himself ragged like her since I was in 9th grade. However, I don't think that she should give him crap for staying at home when she didn't, and I don't think that he should feel bad about being a stay-at-home parent. 
- But, to go along with the question, I know that my dad did feel bad for not making money to "help out" the family - yet, I think that he did make an economic contribution. By him staying at home to take care of my sister and I while we were not in school, he was able to help our family keep the money we normally would have spent on all-day day care. Also by watching us at home, we were able to cut down on the money that would have gone into gas for driving not only to another job, but back-and-forth to the day care. So, even though he wasn't adding to the income - he was most defintely keeping possible savings in the bank. Loophole! :)