YouTube Instagram TikTok How it works FAQ

The fastest way to turn talking videos into clean, searchable text. Free, private and no account required.

About

Built by Rishav Raj with one goal: free transcripts for everyone.

rishav@yttotranscript.com

Transcribe

YouTube to text
YouTube with timestamps
Instagram Reels
TikTok videos

Learn

How it works
FAQ
YouTube transcripts guide

More

Chrome extension
Contact
Privacy policy
Terms of service

© 2026 YTtoTranscript. Made for creators & researchers.

Not affiliated with YouTube, Instagram or TikTok. Respect creators’ copyright.

bell hooks: mujeres negras. — Transcript · YTtoTranscript

Home/Transcripts/YouTube

YouTube Transcript

bell hooks: mujeres negras.

Heterocronías Feminismos y Epistemologías del Sur · 2,467 words · 12 min read · EN

Watch on YouTube

Share X LinkedIn WhatsApp

Below is the complete, readable transcript of bell hooks: mujeres negras. by Heterocronías Feminismos y Epistemologías del Sur on YouTube. Read the full text, copy any part you need, or generate a transcript for any video with our free tool.

Good evening. This video is about the Belgian text, which appears in a compilation called "Other Inappropriate Blessings: Feminism from the Borders." The Velux text we 'll be using is called "Black Women Shaping Feminist Theory." Its original publication is from 1984, but here it will give us some very important concepts to understand, first, what

Black feminism is and how it contributes to current feminism. As the prologue, written by the Escalera Caracola collective, points out, it is precisely this feminism that will be considered here. The "hooks" feminism is traversed, from and traversed by borders. What does that mean? Remember when we talked about patriarchal thought? The logic of

patriarchal thought is dichotomous, that is, it's about opposites: man-woman, natural, human-animal, and human-machine. All these oppositions have a border; on one side are men, on the other side are women. This separation is what we want to break free from when we position ourselves at the borders, because it is in this... The place where it's right on the border,

precisely where it starts to do something provocative, causes it to go against this logic, or rather, against this logic of opposition. So, Black feminism, and we'll see this when we analyze this text, is precisely a feminism that is from and traversed by borders. One of the things highlighted in the prologue is precisely that when

we talk about feminism, we shouldn't focus on a single oppression, which is when we normally talk about operations linked to gender, because in reality there are multiple oppressions: gender oppression, class oppression, racial oppression, racism oppression, not all the effects of colonization, transnational migrations— all of these are phenomena that give rise to multiple oppressions. It's not only

Transcribe another video

Paste any YouTube, Instagram or TikTok link to get a free transcript.

Free · No sign-up · Unlimited

Add to Chrome — transcribe in one click

gender oppression. And Bayhawks, we see it here as part of a broad feminist tradition that includes Angela Davis and Alice Walker, among others. One of the fundamental criticisms that Verhoek makes in this work is against conservative and liberal feminism, which precisely had as its motto "all women are oppressed." That motto is... In reality, a

slogan that obscures because it doesn't allow us to see specific forms of gender oppression produced by racism and class. That is to say, while it's true that gender oppression exists, not all gender oppression is the same; there are specific forms of that gender oppression, and when we begin to consider race, racism, and class,

then these differences begin to appear. If we say that all women are oppressed, it seems we are giving oppression a homogeneous aspect, and that's not the case. Verhoek points out that in the US—that is, what we are going to discuss in this text is precisely the situation of the collective of Black American women—

here Verhoek points out that in the US, feminism does n't arise precisely from those women who are most directly victims of sexist oppression; that is, that's not where the theories are developed. She analyzes a text by Betty Friedan called "The Feminine Mystique" and recognizes its value because it is a text that paves the way for

contemporary feminism, but nevertheless, it has a serious problem, which is that it ignores the existence of women who are not They're white, or they're white but poor, so it treats women as if they were a homogenous group. Yes, that's a problem with that text and all of feminism, especially second-wave feminism, where women are treated as if they

were a homogenous group. So, for example, this text, like Bet and Frida's "The Feminine Mystique," isn't going to consider classism or racism. The specific problems of middle-class white housewives aren't the most important, most pressing problems for a large number of women. So, this is important to keep in mind to understand why many women did

n't join the feminist movement. The white women who dominate feminist discourse in the US don't question whether their perspective considers other groups of women. They aren't aware that their perspective will contain racial or class prejudices. So, one problem is that they won't address or visualize the link between race and class, and I think this is a

very important element for understanding Debeljuh's feminism. There is indeed a link between race and class that middle-class white women's feminism—I do n't think we're talking about in the US—didn't consider. The main authors of American feminism did n't consider this link between race and class. The class structure in American society has been formed precisely from a

racial politics of white supremacy, and that's precisely what isn't always seen. Poverty has race; that is, who are the poor, what races do the poorest belong to? So the class struggle must include the struggle to end racism. Verhoek includes Rita May Brown, and this author will argue something that I find very interesting: that we have to move beyond

the notion of class, beyond Marx's definition, because what she will point out is that class is much more than that definition. It's much more than the relationship of relationships with respect to the means of production. In reality, class has to do with behaviors, with assumptions about life, with experience, with what is expected of each of

us, how we think about... The future, what we feel, all of this is determined by patterns, and those patterns are what we need to make visible and work to modify, and that has to be considered in the term "class," yes. So [Music] notice one interesting thing they point out is that many women suffer

sexist tyranny, but nevertheless, there isn't a common link between all women. I didn't want to take an idea from Benjamin Barber, who, while not very critical of this author, does take an idea that is precisely this: that suffering is not necessarily a universal experience that can be measured with a common yardstick, yes, because that

suffering is different across classes, races, and human groups. So, suffering is not something universal. So, when we say that all women are oppressed, this seems to present a common perspective; it gives a certain homogeneity to oppression, and they're not going to consider class, race, religion, sexual preference; they're not going to consider the diversity of experiences.

So, what we have to analyze is what the term "to be oppressed" means in this case, and give a definition. Yes, I think the definition of oppressed that she gives is excellent; it's precisely the absence of choice. An oppressed person is someone who has no possibility of choice. So, if we don't just want to know the

degree of oppression we have, we have to see the possibility of making choices. In many cases, sexism hasn't meant an absolute lack of choices, whereas in other cases it has. So, the term oppression—and this is taken from an author named Christine Delphi—this author will say that in terms of pressure, she places the feminist struggle in a

radical political framework. So, taking this notion of oppressed as an absence of choice, it is important because that's where the differences begin to appear. Because if I am a woman and from a certain social class, a white middle class, then I have some possibilities of choice, like in a university. And let's think that if we are talking in a

US context, the main universities are, etc., private. So, look, there are possibilities of choice. Now, if we belong to the Black community or, for example, [Music], we are people in economic precarity, then the possibilities of choice are fewer. The degree of oppression varies according to the possibilities of making choices we have. Therefore, oppression

is always political and social; to speak of social oppression is a kind of redundancy. So, the idea of organizing around one's own oppression leads to ignoring class differences. For many feminists, it also leads to ignoring the problem of racism. So, middle-class women turned their own interests and problems into the main focus of the

feminist movement. That's why the question is fair: who had access to universities, publishing houses, the media, and money? Those who had access to all of this are precisely the owners of rhetoric. So, it's no coincidence that these authors she's criticizing don't consider the interests of other groups of women. So, there are feminist women, or at least women

who call themselves feminists, but who don't oppose patriarchy, capitalism, classism, or racism. So, one can say, how can one be a feminist and call oneself a feminist? At least today we see that more clearly, and not oppose capitalism, not oppose classism, not oppose racism. I would add here, and not oppose speciesism, if the toy doesn't say this,

I will. [Music] Fu, who is another author already cited, points out something very important: the difference between the sexes doesn't reside in whether one has a penis or not, or I don't know where the difference between the sexes lies, but rather in whether or not one is part of the male phallic economy. So the

genital problem, the difference between sexes, is not a genital problem, but a problem of whether one is part of that male phallic economy or not. So feminism isn't about becoming a successful executive of a large company or winning an elected position, but rather about opening the bank of feminist women who consider precisely

this—not being an executive— an achievement of feminism. No, that's not feminism because it plays into the hands of capitalism. So in this way, this feminism is totally co-opted by capitalism and ends up playing that game. It's not the game of capitalism. So this feminism, which is made up of feminists or so-called feminists,

who are Conservatives and liberals, and of course, they all play into the hands of capitalism. So what Belhú is saying is that a feminist perspective is needed that is different, that is not permeated by the ideology of liberal individualism. So, it seems to me that this is a very important element that we have to address

because in many current feminist discourses, feminism is still thought of in terms of liberal individualism, and it is still considered an achievement of feminism that there are female executives, businesswomen who serve capitalism. So, we need a new feminist perspective that doesn't play into the hands of capitalism. So, what is needed for that? Well, to create, through critique,

an awareness of all those factors that are aligning. Another author she cites is Griffin. For this, this author says that we must avoid silencing dissent because what is needed is precisely a feminist movement that does not homogenize, and dissent is necessary. When a theory, Griffin says, becomes an ideology, it begins to destroy

individuality and self-awareness, and fundamentally, what it will do is try to discipline, to control everything that is not... It will manage to explain, it will transform it into an enemy, then this type of ideology becomes a pressure, and excuse me, a prison, a prison for the mind, says Griffin. So feminism shouldn't tend towards

hegemony or homogeneity, but rather it has to be something dynamic, accepting the heritage within it. Something must be considered: people who are truly oppressed, who have almost no possibility of action, know it. You know they are oppressed even when they don't participate in organized resistance or are unable to articulate the nature of their

oppression in writing. So what she criticizes there is that many feminist discourses, when they address the issue of racism, turn Black women into objects of that privileged discourse of race. So this doesn't only apply to Black women in the US, it also applies to American Indians, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. So we

have to be careful with these feminist discourses that transform these groups into objects of the privileged discourse of race of a particular group. The problem is The problem with these discourses is that they don't understand the interdependence of oppressions based on sex, race, and class. These operations of sex, race, and class are

intimately related, and many feminist analyses focus exclusively on gender, considering it the sole determinant of women's oppression and, consequently, men's oppression, that it will mark women's destiny. But socialist feminists also have a problem because they only consider the relationship between class and gender and don't consider race. Therefore, all these dependencies—sex, race, and

class—must be considered. She points out something I think is important: the bottom of the occupational pyramid in the US is occupied by Black women, meaning the lowest in terms of job type, wages, etc. White women and Black men can be both oppressors and oppressed. White women can be oppressed. For example, middle-class white women

can suffer some kind of oppression within the home and family. But at the same time, if they are... Businesswomen can be oppressors, yes, and the same goes for Black men. They can be oppressed in the labor market in class relations, but they can also be oppressors in the family context. So what I'm going to point out—

and I think this needs to be emphasized— is that any group that defines liberation as the possibility of achieving equality with white men of the dominant class has a vested interest in the continuation of the exploitation and oppression of others. So let's analyze this: whether it's white women or Black men or any other group

that seeks to achieve equality with white men of the dominant class, that is, to enter the game of capitalism, specifically, they have a vested interest in the continuation of the exploitation and oppression of others. So we have to get out of that situation. And what's detrimental is that the collective of Black women,

specifically Black American women, has lived experience because they don't have the possibility of being oppressors; they are only oppressed because they are at the bottom of that pyramid. So they have lived experience that will allow for a completely different worldview, different from all those who... In a way, this almost absolute marginalization they experience

grants them certain privileges, a perspective from which to critique the racist, classist, and sexist hegemony. And so, to conclude, this situation of total marginalization becomes a kind of advantage for understanding and contributing to a feminist theory—a feminist theory that doesn't play into the hands of capitalism, liberalism, and neoliberalism, that ca n't be defined by that system, that

is absolutely different, that has a different perspective, a different vision. So, thinking from there, from that marginality, from that border—because that's what thinking from a border is—is precisely where the great contribution of the Black feminist movement to feminism will emerge. Well, thank you very much. I hope you enjoy the text by Bail Hub.