Skip to main content

Lost Father Patriarchy & other masculinities - Thelma

 In the beginning of their dialogue, Hall and hooks discuss the tension(s) of the feminist rupture in cultural studies and how it was misunderstood at the beginning of its formation. hooks explains many Black women intellectuals were too intimidated to engage in a feminist critique with their male counterparts because of their shared race. While on the other hand, some Black male intellectuals were reluctant to having their work transformed by feminist thinking. Although both Hall and hooks suggest that the hostility and initial resistance to the feminist rupture has already been forgotten, how do feminist or cultural studies continue to resist Black feminism today? 

I am also interested in the idea of the lost father patriarchy and hooks’s theory that Black masculinity is confined to heterosexist paradigms because of its “overwhelming fear of homosexuality” (26). Beyond feminist and queer studies, are there any other theoretical paradigms for examining the expression of Black masculinities? Does the idea of “toxic masculinity” further confine these expressions into heterosexist paradigms? 


We can also discuss the limitations of “toxic masculinity” in the context of a recent event: Will Smith’s response to Chris Rock’s misogynoir and ableism. A lot of viewers have labeled and dismissed Smith’s defense of Jada as toxic masculinity - a reaction primarily rooted in white feminism, carceral logics, and anti-Blackness. How do we, as intellectuals, respond to an event like this (if at all)? This is already too long (sorry), but I was surprised that Nikole Hannah-Jones referred to this moment as an "assault" and called Jada's chronic illness into question, asking "How is hair loss a disability specifically?" (she deleted this tweet already). I'm in no position to judge Hannah-Jones's response, but I think it does suggest that there are still some contingencies to bridging the gap between race and feminism in public discourse.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Addressing the Crisis: Your Collective Digital Stories

https://www.wevideo.com/view/2668669034    https://www.wevideo.com/view/2665696438  https://vimeo.com/695272441  https://www.youtube.com/embed/BN2wDbBLMWo https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pggTZblBzhQ5Nd6d8MU7jg28kBV0WixT https://www.wevideo.com/view/2648072657  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tUBup-RbbiCCl9-pWoOCvs2JFbUJYvhC/ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eed6_fpya8WOfEb0Hjhd4jySuMgi8fI0/

On Journals and Prose

My two questions from this week have emerged from the Judith Butler piece, A 'Bad Writer' Bites Back , both centered around the journal, Philosophy and Literature —which Butler describes as the self-proclaimed “arbiter of good prose.”  I agree with Butler’s staunch defense of questioning common sense and provoking “new ways of looking at a familiar world”, and was reminded of David Harvey’s quote in the introduction to his Companion to Marx’s Capital : “Real learning always entails a struggle to understand the unknown.”   Butler describes Philosophy and Literature as a “culturally conservative academic journal” which naturally led me down a longer-than-anticipated visit to the journal's website . I was greeted with a video presented by the Philosophy and Literature’s editor Garry L. Hagberg, who rails against the “jargon infested” work that litters the journal’s field, locating Philosophy and Literature in clear opposition to such bothersome clutter.  However, Hagberg...