I was split in terms of agreement when it came to this piece of reading. I enjoyed reading some of the insights she gave us in terms of who creates the homeplace and for what purpose it served.
The homeplace was a necessity in order to maintain the inhabitants sanity. The homeplace and its goals were brought to fruition via the female figure of the household. I felt as though I got the whole picture as to what the homeplace should be when she quoted the vietnamese Buddhist monk and relayed his message as the homeplace being resistance. The resistance was going against the change that was occurring and going somewhere where you can regain yourself. The way it is implied is almost that you lose yourself when outside of your self-maintained resistance, and returning to that haven is the only way to remain the individual you once were. To me, this was the most enlightening section of the reading; giving a view as to how black families were able to perservere in a very ignorant and unforgiving time.
However, I disagreed with many of her views on sexism. She seemed upset that the duty of the caretaker of the homeplace was forcefully and innately pushed upon women. Why? When I write this, I hope I don't have some lack of comprehending women's views of societal expectations upon them. If I recall correctly, females are biologically and psychologically more prone to be the caregiver, provider of life and comfort, etc., when it comes to children and families. I personally don't feel as though the men of those societies purposely pushed those responsibilites upon them, but that they happened that way for a greater reason. If those women at that time didn't follow their feelings to provide a safe and welcoming environment, then who would have? bell hooks wished for the greater participation against racism involving women, however, in my eyes, the repercussions of neglecting the maintenance of the "resistance" would have been far worse.
I'm still leaning on the fence a bit for this one.
9 comments:
I see why you are leaning on the fence a bit. Both good sides to it and before commmiting to one you want to be sure of your positioning. This is a good approach. But, for the second half of your post, about the women's role as the caregiver I have a few comments. First, it seems like it was assumed that the women would be the caregivers, but in reality it should have been split up equally between both parents. A child benefits more from equal input from both parents rather than just mothering. And second, maybe the fathers would have taken a greater role if the women didn't just assume it was put upon them. Not many fathers would do nothing if the child's mother decided to not be a motherly figure. They would step in and take a greater role I think.
Wow, I really agree with your whole post. For some reason I had a hard time putting into words what I thought, but you really pin pointed it. I thought the second paragraph on page 69 was genuine and respectful. I really enjoyed hearing how much the homplace really meant to her, and I think this paragraph was very strong in emotion. Though, similar to you, I disagree on her views of feminism. I do agree that woman are more nurturing than men, and this puts them as, but not limiting them to, caregivers inside the household. Although back then, it was a different story, most women couldn't get a good job, etc. But today, no one can "place" you in any certain role; you are who you want to be. I also don't believe women should be the sole caregivers in the house, men should definately do there part.
And to what Stephanie K. said, I agree, the role needs to be split equally, but doesn't the role include homelife and worklife, and if the man in the family is the only one bringing home the paycheck, than the woman needs to do more of a part at home, to make up for what she can't do outside of it. But in current times, my previous statement is void; women can do their part in the "real world".
From a woman's point of view, I don't think that it should just be the woman's job to make a comforting atmosphere. What about the men? Do they just go through the pain of daily life, which women were also going through, and then that's it? I agree that women naturally tend to be the caregiver, but it wouldn't hurt for a man to be a part of creating a warm atmosphere. It takes two to make a child, so why doesn't it take two to make a home?
i didn't read any of the comments until after i posted, and i really agree with stephanie and the person above my comment (sorry i don't know your name!).
Biological differences between men and women is a source of a great deal of debate. The scientific community hasn't really come to consensus on this topic. Many argue that science is biased against women and that, because of that bias, the differences between the genders has been overstated. Like I said, it's still being debated.
The problem, as hooks sees it, is when roles are *restricted*. The problem comes in when women are not accepted in domains other than the home.
The irony that hooks points out is that, although women were restricted to homes because of sexist attitudes, they used these home sites as very powerful political places. "Sites of resistance."
Good discussion!
I agree with most of your points. Bell hooks article was very interesting and thought provoking. I do not think that hooks was so much upset as disappointed. She is disappointed in the fact that no one tried to change the role of women. People just accepted the fact that women should perform these types of responsibilites. The fact that no one tried to step in is disapppointing.
I agree with a lot of what you have to you. Hooks atricle is very interesting and thought provoking. I have never heard of homeplace until this article and you and I both agree that it is an amazing idea. I do not however think that hooks is so much as upset compared to disappointed. I believe that she is disappointed not by the fact that society put women into this position, but rather because nobody really stood up and put a stop to it.
Congratulations Mike on bravely mentioning feminism in your discussion. I'm sure you were ready for a lot of the female classmates to contradict or add to your statements.
While you make good points on "biological differences" in the male and female species, there are a lot of gaps that have to be mentioned. As much as women do have an instinctual role to be a caregiver, things are changing. That’s not to say that women are denying their motherly role, but woman are taking that role above and beyond.
Women no longer have to be constricted to being a mother. They are capable of taking on a career! At the same time, while women are upgrading to this lifestyle, men, too, have to make a sacrifice. Men and women should share the caregiver role, like what Stephanie said.
Erin eloquently stated, “Today, no one can "place" you in any certain role; you are who you want to be.” I couldn’t have said it better. I suppose my opinion is slightly bias (being a female.) But it could help to give you insight on being a woman.
Just thought I’d put in my two cents. =)
I agree with you when you said that women are more biologically and psychologically fit to be a caregiver but you also have to wonder if pressures from society had something to do with that. Also, I do believe that no matter what, women probably would have still taken on the role of the caregiver because we are generally more sensitve and caring than men.
And to answer your question in your comment, unfortunately no, I dont think the involvement of more women in the movement would have altered the stuggles african americans had to endure.
I think hook's had a very strong feminist view which made me think of some of her writing as just whining.
Post a Comment