Loved everything about what she had to say! I can watch this many times. I'm happy my professor at Morehouse made us watch this for classroom discussion purposes.
I would love to see an updated version of this that includes the influence of social media. bell hooks should be a regular contributor on MSNBC. Better yet, she should have her own weekly show!
I was surpised by more than the f bomb. Excellent vid. She is very critical and well articulated, bravo! I've watched them all and ty for posting them!
love the documentaries Sut Jhally and the MEF produced and this one is no exception I look forward to getting more into Bell Hooks and a conversation she has with Dr. Cornel West. I only disagreed with her praise of Spike Lee apart from that, brilliant commentary
To get to the heart of the matter, less emphasis should be put on those and more on how we are taught that it is noble to solve our problems through violence, and how we owe our allegiance to a higher authority. Those are the main issues that should be addressed.
I didn't hear her criticise the film. In fact, it sounded like she was supporting it iin terms of its effect on raising consciousness surrounding imperialism (though she strangly mixed the Irish and the Scots there). Her point, which yours doesn't disagree with, is who in this society has the power to bring such a story to so many.
Accessible?! Do you call bumping the price of this here program to $195 and selectively enforcing copyright accessible? Most men would just as soon accuse Her of doing it and spin some story of her words being worthless, but I blame the studio. Or maybe someone doesn't want the studio to sell it. Section 7 is being discretely censored by the means described above. The means are different but the effect is that few outside the elite ever see it even if they want to.
Judging from the video clips shown throughout the series, I'd say somewhere in the mid to late 90's. I know in the music video section they had stuff like No Diggity as examples so you figure around 96 or so?
“To remain bonded with the working class culture that I came from...” That right there is the credibility and integrity I look for in intellectuals. We need all people to be able to think critically. Privilege does not improve the thinking processes! Give yourselves a future Black people. We need more than a job, we can do more than survive.
It's a great video but please PUT SOME TRIGGERS! Rape scne, racist violence, put some fracking trigger here please. I was just here for a work about bell hooks i wasn't prepared. Thank you!!!
Gotta love all these Gamergate losers treating anyone left of center like they're hypersensitive, but yet they were so threatened by Anita Sarkeesian's benign webseries that they started an online harassment campaign against her and other women in the industry. Why? Because they feel threatened by the notion that groups are finally getting a voice in an industry they've long been excluded from. Pathetic, really.
I just wasted 10 minutes or so of my life. Bell Hooks is the classic professor who is in love with her own voice. Talks, and talks without any substance. She makes baseless claims like movies greatly affect people's thoughts. However there is zero evidence. There is no correlation between violence in the media and violence in the real world. While I'm not saying media and culture doesn't shape the individual in some way, it's not the simplistic theory that this detached from reality professor puts forth.
You misconstrued everything she said. Her response at 6:25 make clear that their is plausibility of someone being conditioned to think violence against Women is appropriate.
WithoutRemorse12 At th-cam.com/video/KLMVqnyTo_0/w-d-xo.htmlm25s she said, "But that is not to say that if I watch enough of those images I might not come away thinking that certain forms of unacceptable male violence and coercion in relationship to my female body are acceptable." And her evidence was... ... ... nothing! For her theory to be correct in any sense, there would be a strong correlation between the amount of violence media one consumes and crimes that they commit. If anything, the inverse has been proven true. At least with video games. The kids playing 5 hours of video games a night are less likely to go out and commit violence against men or women than those who play zero. Said Hooks, "I feel that its frightening as mass media uses more certain kinds of representations for specific impact and effect, we are also being told these images are not that important." Bell Hooks doesn't understand art or social commentary. Many stories contain violence because they are based on violence in real life. Saving Private Ryan was not the cause of WWII. Nor did it cause the Iraq War. She does know that violence against women occurred before the motion picture was invented right? Hip Hop often contains violence because that is what life in the urban areas contains. Violence predated hip hop. And violence in America has gone down as violence in media has gone up. You'd think an "academic" like Hooks would be aware. I just finished watching the movie 'American Psycho.' There was violence in the film. However the message of the film was commentary regarding the rich and privileged. It was about how they don't receive consequences to their actions the way normal people would. But someone like her sees that film, misses the point, and focuses on violence like a good little Puritan Christian would. He final quote is somehow more absurd than the others. "Liberal white men who are moneyed can produce whatever within the context of Hollywood can produce whatever images that they want.” For starters, if she wants to be prejudicial against Jews she should just come out and admit her antisemitism. Not hide being labeling them "liberal white men with money." Secondly, she does understand that all that movie studios want to do is make money, right? Occasionally there may be a propaganda film here and there, but the majority is to bring money to the investors. That's it. Michael Bay gets funded because he brings in profits. And he apparently makes films that people want to see. I don't, but obviously most movie goers do. What makes feminists like Hooks maddening, is that have the audacity to call themselves "anti-capitalistic." Nowhere in their actions is that demonstrated. All they do is want to sell books and take up university resources pedaling religious dogma.
+dahlberg31 We live in a White Male Patriarchy. In that Social construct, Men are valued by how much money they make and Women by their looks. For a time under Patriarchy domestic violence and Rape were taboo subjects. Violence that happened between a Husband and Wife was no one else's business. The Rape Victim was responsible for the Rapist acts. Yes, these things might exist before certain mediums but they can reinforce these destructive ideas. If Hollywood was focused on the bottom line they would bring diversity into the executive room and behind the camera. They just can never seem to get demographics of People of Color and Women because the White male patriarchy in Hollywood is afraid to share power.
WithoutRemorse12 You can't just start off with a presupposition and then argue from that. You have to first clearly detail what you mean by "white male patriarchy." Secondly, you must demonstrate that we currently live in one. But even if we lived in one, your other claims are baseless. "Men are valued by how much money they make and women by their looks." If we lived in a "patriarchy", men wouldn't be valued by how much money they make. Women are the ones that put more pressure on men to make more money. Why would men create a system where they are most likely going to fail at providing great wealth? And women don't judge men by their looks? That's your claim? And all of those tendencies are not a "social construct." Basic evolutionary biology of a dimorphic species explains it. (This all evolved prehistory). A women desires a stable environment to raise her children from. A younger man is less likely to have enough experience and resources to be a safe bet to provide for a family. A man desires a younger woman because younger women are better able to have more success with birthing healthy children than older. And secondly, since humans are largely a monogamous species, having a younger mate will yield the most kids. And these features exist in numerous other animals. There are several kinds of birds where the male must build an elobarte nest while courting a mate. There is no copulation until a nest is built. Back to humans, girls develop sexually at a younger age than boys. That's not a social construct. Men have their sexual peak at a much younger age than women though. Once again, that's biology, not a social construct. I could go on and on but if you want to learn about human sexual evolution, read Jared Diamonds excellent book, "why is sex fun?" And under this patriarchy, you're saying that I have more power than Hilary Clinton? I hold more power than Barack Obama? That's what you and Hooks are saying? Now the history of domestic violence and rape is atrocious. That is why feminism was necessary oh so many years ago. It was unfair when a woman is trapped in an abusive marriage with nowhere to turn. However, modern American women have options. And yes, sadly violence still happens. But there are institutions in place in order to rescue those women, and punish the aggressor. If we lived in a patriarchy, why would there be so many legal instruments in order to punish those who commit acts of violence? Why would women receive alimony and child support? And those who don't pay are arrested? Why are women better able to get subsidized health care and financial assistance to go to college? And show me the institution in america that holds the rape victim responsible! Now you believe that there is this white male patriarchal conspiracy controlling all forms of media? So Oprah Winfrey doesn't have media power? You're saying there are no female or POC directors? Even though the movie I just watched was directed by a woman. A movie feminists hate because it contains violence against women. Last year's Academy Award best director and movie went to a Mexican. The top rated TV show last year was Empire. And you also claim that this Hollywood conspiracy will sacrifice profits because they are scared of "sharing power?" You must have proof I'm sure. I would love you to make the case that Disney doesn't prioritize profits. Do feminists even know what proof is? At least bible thumping creationists will make up evidence. You don't even do that. You just make claims with zero proof. You know you sound as ridiculous as a 9-11 truther, right?
Nuffan, you must not have consciously witnessed any racism in your life if this qualifies as the most racist material you've ever watched. Unless of course if you were speaking in hyperbole, perhaps motivated by a raw emotional response to something that questioned some fundamental biases that have shaped your consciousness. Either way, I kindly suggest you start thinking more critically, pursue your scholarly career with less fear and aggression clouding your mind, and that you begin to question yourself as to the source of this fear/aggression. I make this suggestion in the hopes that you will perhaps feel less discomfort during these critical years of your education, and feel more complete as an individual beyond your college experience.
+Nuffan TV You have to love her antisemitic jab at the end. Instead of using the expression "dirty, greedy Jew," she calls them "liberal white men with money." Got to love them code words!
How exactly is that a jab at Jewish people? Jewish aren't all white for one thing. Number 2- Jewish people are the only ones associated with monetary wealth.
Loved everything about what she had to say! I can watch this many times. I'm happy my professor at Morehouse made us watch this for classroom discussion purposes.
So you're a Morehouse Man.👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾✌🏾 so is my son. He introduced me to her. 🙂 do you know Ibrahiim
Yes I Do! Hey nice to meet you.
@@dequanyemanley7811 nice meeting you too. Are you also the man that knows my niece Shana? I wish you well. Be safe out here
I would love to see an updated version of this that includes the influence of social media. bell hooks should be a regular contributor on MSNBC. Better yet, she should have her own weekly show!
rest in peace
Thank you so much for posting this. bell hooks is so important.
Wow. So much knowledge in this segment. My eyes opened wider. Thank you
Refreshing, excellent post. Thanks leocine.
I was surpised by more than the f bomb. Excellent vid. She is very critical and well articulated, bravo! I've watched them all and ty for posting them!
Professor Hooks it Fantastic!
This woman should be President of the USA.
+ThrowbackSoul She certainly stands on platforms and politics instead of principles, which I guess qualifies her.
SAAAMEEE
ThrowbackSoul Amen in 2017
Thank you for uploading
love the documentaries Sut Jhally and the MEF produced and this one is no exception I look forward to getting more into Bell Hooks and a conversation she has with Dr. Cornel West. I only disagreed with her praise of Spike Lee apart from that, brilliant commentary
To get to the heart of the matter, less emphasis should be put on those and more on how we are taught that it is noble to solve our problems through violence, and how we owe our allegiance to a higher authority. Those are the main issues that should be addressed.
Media people have much power than Politicians
when i watched the movie kids it was like my childhood it was really like that in the nineties
also most ppl felt pity for the dark fella get beatn up at least i did and im white
W vid fr 👏👏👏
@robertwc82 you can never watch too much Simpsons. the Simpsons played a big role in shaping my world veiw, it shows reality for how it is.
I didn't hear her criticise the film. In fact, it sounded like she was supporting it iin terms of its effect on raising consciousness surrounding imperialism (though she strangly mixed the Irish and the Scots there). Her point, which yours doesn't disagree with, is who in this society has the power to bring such a story to so many.
bell hooks! She's my girl!
"what ever happened to fair use. oh yeah!"
-Duff Man
i have watched way too much Simpsons lol
Good stuff from Bell
One point though; specific liberal white men? That isn't how I would categorise Mel Gibson. White and male yes. Liberal? No.
Accessible?! Do you call bumping the price of this here program to $195 and selectively enforcing copyright accessible?
Most men would just as soon accuse Her of doing it and spin some story of her words being worthless, but I blame the studio. Or maybe someone doesn't want the studio to sell it.
Section 7 is being discretely censored by the means described above. The means are different but the effect is that few outside the elite ever see it even if they want to.
what year was this?
Judging from the video clips shown throughout the series, I'd say somewhere in the mid to late 90's. I know in the music video section they had stuff like No Diggity as examples so you figure around 96 or so?
“To remain bonded with the working class culture that I came from...” That right there is the credibility and integrity I look for in intellectuals. We need all people to be able to think critically. Privilege does not improve the thinking processes! Give yourselves a future Black people. We need more than a job, we can do more than survive.
Race is not a biological reality; it is a social reality.
me too!
HONEY BADGER
It's a great video but please PUT SOME TRIGGERS! Rape scne, racist violence, put some fracking trigger here please. I was just here for a work about bell hooks i wasn't prepared. Thank you!!!
Why do you assume he is white?
lolololol
um... and you're not a bigot...?!
Limiting the discourse of analysis to quaint representations of gender and race is reductionist.
the main influence of Anita Sarkeesian - reason enough to be wary
+GoDrex Ohhhh, so scary!!!
+Baby G Read at least one of her books or shut up.
+Jay M
He already subjected himself to 9 minutes of religious drivel, why would you torment him more with her books?
Gotta love all these Gamergate losers treating anyone left of center like they're hypersensitive, but yet they were so threatened by Anita Sarkeesian's benign webseries that they started an online harassment campaign against her and other women in the industry. Why? Because they feel threatened by the notion that groups are finally getting a voice in an industry they've long been excluded from. Pathetic, really.
I just wasted 10 minutes or so of my life. Bell Hooks is the classic professor who is in love with her own voice. Talks, and talks without any substance. She makes baseless claims like movies greatly affect people's thoughts. However there is zero evidence. There is no correlation between violence in the media and violence in the real world. While I'm not saying media and culture doesn't shape the individual in some way, it's not the simplistic theory that this detached from reality professor puts forth.
You misconstrued everything she said. Her response at 6:25 make clear that their is plausibility of someone being conditioned to think violence against Women is appropriate.
WithoutRemorse12
At th-cam.com/video/KLMVqnyTo_0/w-d-xo.htmlm25s she said, "But that is not to say that if I watch enough of those images I might not come away thinking that certain forms of unacceptable male violence and coercion in relationship to my female body are acceptable." And her evidence was... ... ... nothing! For her theory to be correct in any sense, there would be a strong correlation between the amount of violence media one consumes and crimes that they commit. If anything, the inverse has been proven true. At least with video games. The kids playing 5 hours of video games a night are less likely to go out and commit violence against men or women than those who play zero.
Said Hooks, "I feel that its frightening as mass media uses more certain kinds of representations for specific impact and effect, we are also being told these images are not that important."
Bell Hooks doesn't understand art or social commentary. Many stories contain violence because they are based on violence in real life. Saving Private Ryan was not the cause of WWII. Nor did it cause the Iraq War. She does know that violence against women occurred before the motion picture was invented right? Hip Hop often contains violence because that is what life in the urban areas contains. Violence predated hip hop. And violence in America has gone down as violence in media has gone up. You'd think an "academic" like Hooks would be aware.
I just finished watching the movie 'American Psycho.' There was violence in the film. However the message of the film was commentary regarding the rich and privileged. It was about how they don't receive consequences to their actions the way normal people would. But someone like her sees that film, misses the point, and focuses on violence like a good little Puritan Christian would.
He final quote is somehow more absurd than the others. "Liberal white men who are moneyed can produce whatever within the context of Hollywood can produce whatever images that they want.” For starters, if she wants to be prejudicial against Jews she should just come out and admit her antisemitism. Not hide being labeling them "liberal white men with money." Secondly, she does understand that all that movie studios want to do is make money, right? Occasionally there may be a propaganda film here and there, but the majority is to bring money to the investors. That's it. Michael Bay gets funded because he brings in profits. And he apparently makes films that people want to see. I don't, but obviously most movie goers do.
What makes feminists like Hooks maddening, is that have the audacity to call themselves "anti-capitalistic." Nowhere in their actions is that demonstrated. All they do is want to sell books and take up university resources pedaling religious dogma.
+dahlberg31 We live in a White Male Patriarchy. In that Social construct, Men are valued by how much money they make and Women by their looks. For a time under Patriarchy domestic violence and Rape were taboo subjects. Violence that happened between a Husband and Wife was no one else's business. The Rape Victim was responsible for the Rapist acts. Yes, these things might exist before certain mediums but they can reinforce these destructive ideas. If Hollywood was focused on the bottom line they would bring diversity into the executive room and behind the camera. They just can never seem to get demographics of People of Color and Women because the White male patriarchy in Hollywood is afraid to share power.
WithoutRemorse12
You can't just start off with a presupposition and then argue from that. You have to first clearly detail what you mean by "white male patriarchy." Secondly, you must demonstrate that we currently live in one.
But even if we lived in one, your other claims are baseless.
"Men are valued by how much money they make and women by their looks."
If we lived in a "patriarchy", men wouldn't be valued by how much money they make. Women are the ones that put more pressure on men to make more money. Why would men create a system where they are most likely going to fail at providing great wealth? And women don't judge men by their looks? That's your claim?
And all of those tendencies are not a "social construct." Basic evolutionary biology of a dimorphic species explains it. (This all evolved prehistory). A women desires a stable environment to raise her children from. A younger man is less likely to have enough experience and resources to be a safe bet to provide for a family. A man desires a younger woman because younger women are better able to have more success with birthing healthy children than older. And secondly, since humans are largely a monogamous species, having a younger mate will yield the most kids. And these features exist in numerous other animals. There are several kinds of birds where the male must build an elobarte nest while courting a mate. There is no copulation until a nest is built. Back to humans, girls develop sexually at a younger age than boys. That's not a social construct. Men have their sexual peak at a much younger age than women though. Once again, that's biology, not a social construct. I could go on and on but if you want to learn about human sexual evolution, read Jared Diamonds excellent book, "why is sex fun?"
And under this patriarchy, you're saying that I have more power than Hilary Clinton? I hold more power than Barack Obama? That's what you and Hooks are saying?
Now the history of domestic violence and rape is atrocious. That is why feminism was necessary oh so many years ago. It was unfair when a woman is trapped in an abusive marriage with nowhere to turn. However, modern American women have options. And yes, sadly violence still happens. But there are institutions in place in order to rescue those women, and punish the aggressor. If we lived in a patriarchy, why would there be so many legal instruments in order to punish those who commit acts of violence? Why would women receive alimony and child support? And those who don't pay are arrested? Why are women better able to get subsidized health care and financial assistance to go to college? And show me the institution in america that holds the rape victim responsible!
Now you believe that there is this white male patriarchal conspiracy controlling all forms of media? So Oprah Winfrey doesn't have media power? You're saying there are no female or POC directors? Even though the movie I just watched was directed by a woman. A movie feminists hate because it contains violence against women. Last year's Academy Award best director and movie went to a Mexican. The top rated TV show last year was Empire. And you also claim that this Hollywood conspiracy will sacrifice profits because they are scared of "sharing power?" You must have proof I'm sure. I would love you to make the case that Disney doesn't prioritize profits.
Do feminists even know what proof is? At least bible thumping creationists will make up evidence. You don't even do that. You just make claims with zero proof. You know you sound as ridiculous as a 9-11 truther, right?
D-31, she in fact says EXACTLY the same thing you said. Watch closely. Like Jacob, you struggle with your own angel. :-)
This is the most racist BS I've ever had to watch. Can't believe I'm being forced to watch this nonsense for a college course
Why do you have this opinion?
sad day for higher learning and the likes of Nuffan
Nuffan, you must not have consciously witnessed any racism in your life if this qualifies as the most racist material you've ever watched. Unless of course if you were speaking in hyperbole, perhaps motivated by a raw emotional response to something that questioned some fundamental biases that have shaped your consciousness. Either way, I kindly suggest you start thinking more critically, pursue your scholarly career with less fear and aggression clouding your mind, and that you begin to question yourself as to the source of this fear/aggression. I make this suggestion in the hopes that you will perhaps feel less discomfort during these critical years of your education, and feel more complete as an individual beyond your college experience.
+Nuffan TV
You have to love her antisemitic jab at the end. Instead of using the expression "dirty, greedy Jew," she calls them "liberal white men with money." Got to love them code words!
How exactly is that a jab at Jewish people? Jewish aren't all white for one thing. Number 2- Jewish people are the only ones associated with monetary wealth.