Final Blog Response

Ch 17: First of all, I was surprised to have a concept such as "love" brought into such an academic, philosophical and political discussion of feminism by hooks. This is not only an abstract concept but one that has no one definition and is experienced in a multitude of different ways. Love can also be a very personal phenomenon for each individual and the ability to study it empirically is a challenge to the research community. But having said that, I think I understand what hooks is getting at. She is talking about equality in its purest form is love. And equality in its purest form is also feminist rights. So they equal each other (if a=b and b=c then a=c).

          The part that I get hung up on is how to we define this? How will we see this played out in the world in such a way that we say, "Aha, there it is. That couple exudes what hooks was talking about with feminism and love." I agree with hooks in the idea and what she is saying, but I do not think there is a way we can ever truly critique whether it is truly happening on a social level. The relationship of a couple is complex, private and fluctuating in a way that it could never be measured. Plus, all observers would have their own biases based on their own experiences. But maybe I'm looking at this too much with the "science-y research" part of my thinking. Yes I agree with what hooks is saying but it is quite idealistic and how will we ever know if we have reached that goal. I would also like to point out that hooks only talks about the romantic aspect of love. There are many other forms of love that are often lost in our society and should be brought to light more often. 

          As for the Patti Stanger clip, that was interesting to say the least. I have seen her show a couple times and found some interesting takeaways - but a lot more opinions and advice I didn't care for. In this clip she unnecessarily promotes old-school beliefs and values under the guise that modern women are empowered to make choices. I am not going to go to a steakhouse alone, keep track of a score of a sports event I am not interested in, and flash smiles to get men's attention. Because none of these things are me. If a woman felt like doing these things were already something she would naturally do, then go for it, I have no criticism for that. My point is that better dating advice would be to be yourself and do things you would normally do. I am not going to attend an electronics or comic event just to meet guys, because then I would be acting like someone I'm not. And also, why is she reversing all of our progress toward equality by telling the guy "I'm old-fashioned, you call me"? Hello, haven't we spent decades trying to equalize the dating scene in terms of initiation? If a guy hands me his card and says call me and I'm interested, why not call him? If a girl can ask out a guy, she can also call him.
          Stanger's view on love does not aline with hooks view because it really is not about equality. Stash cash? Really? Earthquakes? In a true equality both individuals in the couple would have the option for career and the option for staying home. Stanger's view of love is very heteronormative and focuses way more on the woman being a certain way in certain situations. Better advice to men and women: be yourself and pursue activities that you enjoy. In these contexts you will meet people who are also being their authentic selves.

Ch 18: I think the main way that religions become patriarchal is in leadership, which is male-dominated. So for a Biblical reference...all of them since Jesus is male and so are his disciples/apostles. I am not a theologian and do not practice Christianity, but the story that comes to mind is the woman at the well that Jesus admonishes for having been with several men and some of them she was not married to. What if it had been a man who had been with a bunch of women? I know there are other places in the Bible that admonish adultery, pre-marital sex and other forms of sexual behavior that were looked down on, but this one focuses on man criticizing the sexual behavior of a woman.
          As for the Madonna music video...interesting. I have never heard this song, but it has a pretty straightforward storyline. Pretty realistic, but the heart of the issue is a young woman making her own choices about her body and reproductive abilities and wanting to maintain her close relationship with her father despite her choices. I don't see anything in this that is Biblical or Christian, just a societal rule.

Ch 19: I think this is one of the areas that I will leave this class most passionate about: bringing feminist messages into educational curriculum, especially at the elementary level. I really liked hooks' book "happy to be nappy" and have since found out that she has four more children's books. To me these are one of the best mediums to start discussions in both families and schools. They are basically messages of empowerment for children. One of her children's books is called "Grump, Growl and Groan" and it is about acknowledging your emotions and letting yourself feel them. I think messages like this are important, especially for girls who are taught to be polite and cheerful at all times. Showing negative emotions is considered inappropriate. So my point is that "feminist messages" at this level do not even have to be gender oriented, race focused or "heavy" in any way. It can be small messages that teach children to be themselves and to celebrate who they are as individuals. This can lead to a lot of happy adults who are well-adjusted and able to engage in healthy relationships and be productive and progressive members of society.