A Note To Some Feminist Black Men: Though bell hooks Is Exquisite, There’s More To Black Feminism Than bell hooks

bell hooks is one of the most exquisite, thoughtful, complex, intellectual, and compassionate Black feminist scholars of our time. She’s often the doorway to Black feminist thought for Black feminists, whether women or men, and even White feminists who seek to move beyond the writing of “mainstream” feminists and begin to commit to intersectional feminist scholarship. Her writing is probing and thoughtful and while like all writing, not above critique, it really helped to form part of the foundation of a lot of modern feminist scholarship. I’ve read quite a few of her books, essays, papers and have seen videos of her talks. I quote her often as well. She’s brilliant.

I also know that there is more to Black feminist thought than bell hooks alone. I sometimes wonder if some feminist Black men do.

I know that look that they get—that moment when they first start to realize that patriarchy and patriarchal masculinity are constructs and not fixed or “natural” ways of being. Some start to embrace the concept of anti-sexism and anti-homophobia and not just anti-racism. This is good. They read The Will To Change - Men, Masculinity and Love by bell hooks. They read We Real Cool - Black Men and Masculinity by bell hooks. They start to listen to Black women and consider Black women as truly human even beyond the idea of their connection to men as mom/sister/daughter/GF/wife. This is also good. But this only scratches the surface.

I know that “entry into Black feminism” look and vigor too. My pathway to womanist thought was via The Color Purple by Alice Walker, which I first read when I was 12. My mind was blown. Here was a complex portrait of Black girlhood/womanhood beyond the White gaze and shaped by a Black woman. Here was multiple depictions of Black womanhood with depth and complexity and challenging INTRARACIAL oppression of Black women in addition to interracial oppression. (At such a young age I was already force-fed the idea that intraracial oppression was non-existent—that racism was evil but that intraracial sexism, homophobia, misogynoir and colourism, for example, were “right” or “natural.”) This was new to me on paper though at this age, I was already experiencing street harassment by Black men yet faced racist and sexist oppression at school and intraracial sexist and misongyoirist oppression at church. I lived intersectionality long before I knew of it ideologically. My life changed forever after reading more of her writing. Another pivotal moment for me was when I first heard Queen Latifah’s song “U.N.I.T.Y.” as a freshman in high school. That song is a true womanist epistle. (I didn’t get into Toni Morrison until high school and bell hooks until undergrad for example, where her writing was like an adult doorway into more feminist thought; even so, I embraced Alice Walker first.)

Thus, I don’t dismiss that initial entrance or that book, concepts and/or person that causes an internal paradigm shift for a womanist/feminist. But even at 12 I knew (though I couldn’t articulate it at this level yet) that no one person should be treated as a mascot for Black feminist thought or have Black feminist thought affected by essentialism where any one person becomes what the theory and praxis is about. Even bell hooks would not want that and alludes to this in her writing.

When Black men reduce Black feminist thought to one author and need that to be their go to author, there’s a problem. Sure, we can all have authors/writers that we love (such as Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, Audre Lorde, Maya Angelou, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Patricia Hill Collins, Sonia Sanchez, Nikki Giovanni, Angela Davis, Sikivu Hutchinson and yep, bell hooks are for me) but Black feminist thought is not solely about famous names. Feminist praxis is not solely about pasting quotes from bell hooks on Twitter. Feminist writing is not only what is on Amazon from a formal publisher by the few who even get to that level of platform.

Anytime I challenge Black men who are interested in feminist scholarship to READ MORE and LEARN MORE than just bell hooks or even primarily bell hooks, I receive pushback. They go full into male privilege or bust mode. Some suggest that since she specifically addresses men at times, she’s “better.” Um…doesn’t this sound like Whites who need a White character (and even worse, a “hero”) in a Black novel before they can care or “relate” to the story? Privilege much? If they need a man on the cover of a book or masculinity and nothing else addressed in feminist scholarship, their feminism is not intersectional; they’re basically engaging in a reductionist approach, viewing feminist scholarship in print as elaborate self-help books and little more. Feminism cannot solely be about them proving how they’re “good” men. While I do believe that how we embody the oppressor within is where all feminist work begins, I also know that feminism is not about me “proving” how “good” of a woman I am.

The reality is if a feminist Black man cannot care about feminist scholarship unless they feel the writing is specifically for men only, or centered on masculinity from how they perform it versus how it impacts Black women, children, families and themselves, there’s a problem. This is not progressive. There is more to intersectional feminism than solely considerations of gender. Their feminism needs to be intersectional. While critiques about patriarchy are critical, where is their understanding of White supremacy, racism, sexism, colorism, misogynoir, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, fatphobia, and more? It’s one thing to be new on the path and journey of feminism and simply not have embraced these topics…yet (though oppression is intersectional, so to only study patriarchy and masculinity without other axes of oppression is missing something huge). It’s another to assume that they have all of the answers to Black feminist thought because they are men who sometimes challenge patriarchal thinking and found a favorite author.

 A commitment to justice is MORE than about how they can personally be less patriarchal in their personal lives. It’s more than them reading and citing her books daily and then retreating to male privilege to either heavily critique women who haven’t embraced feminism at all yet (I loathe this; it’s like White atheists telling Black theists to reject theism because of slavery) or ignoring calls for them to check their male privilege by feminist Black women. Black men who engage in essentialism with bell hooks run the risk of doing what Whites do with anti-racism study by reading/quoting MLK and little to no one else. (This holds a special irony since Black women’s contributions to Civil Rights work is heavily marginalized/ignored by Whites and Black men quite often.) Doing this makes their profound work caricatures and gimmicks instead of tools to deconstruct and fight oppression.

The worst of all is the attitude that I’ve received from some feminist Black men—as if I should be “desperately” thankful for their existence and endlessly and daily applaud them for not being misogynist. Excuse me for not creating thrones—I could’ve sworn that’s something that occurs amidst patriarchal thinking, not anti-oppression, intersectional feminist thinking. The thing is, I do talk to feminist Black men, read their writing, share important dialogue and more. I recognize when they’re doing something interesting. I won’t worship them, however, any more than I will Whites engaged in anti-racism work. I won’t praise anything they do over those with the lived experience of the form of oppression they’re against. If an ally requires worship to be an ally, they aren’t an ally. Ally work needs to be noble without the incessant need for the praise of its nobility, otherwise it becomes about oppressed people applauding their oppressors, which is not revolutionary.

In the same way that I expect White feminists not to engage in essentialist thinking of Gloria Steinem, I expect feminist Black men not to engage in essentialist thinking of bell hooks.  While the journey into Black feminist thought by Black men matters deeply, intellectual laziness, essentialism, a lack of commitment to intersectional thinking/complete commitment to justice and male privilege will not be ignored, at least by me.

On The Word “Womanist” Being “Made Up”

All words are made up. All of them. Language as we know it is a human construction. A word doesn’t have to be created by a White person for it to be a “real” word nor does a proper name have to be “approved” by Whites before it’s worthy of the non-White person who possesses it—before it’s a “good” name. I write this because I continue to encounter both White and Black people who think this. White supremacy is the culprit here.

Yesterday on Twitter, through a retweet, I saw a Black man tweet about “womanist” being a “made-up” word (and “made up” here was a pejorative), to the Black woman who mentioned it to him, the latter a mutual follow on Twitter. I replied to him with a bit of the history of the term. He did get rather brash towards her and I couldn’t understand his hostility over the word, at least not outside of its root word, “woman,” which by design seems to offend some men.

The word is “made up.” But ALL words are. However, the notion of it being made up “on the fly” (as many deeply uninformed people think regarding many terms associated with anti-oppression work) and him being confident in this assertion, at least until I replied to him, is proof that simply because we’re in an age of presumably unlimited information, we aren’t necessarily getting smarter, researching anything or are informed. At the least, when I’m presented with a word I’ve never seen before, I immediately start to research. I don’t ask anyone what it means (individual humans don’t have to play Google for me, nor is Google the only tool to research) nor do I make assumptions with braggadocio behind them. Assuming that there is no difference in privilege (the person has access to the web, understands how to search and research, has a smart device, has access to the library etc.) I am unclear as to why they do not do what I just mentioned.

Alice Walker introduced the term “womanist” in her book In Search Of Our Mother’s Gardens - Womanist Prose By Alice Walker  in 1983. It was important to her to highlight the role of Black women and women of colour committed to feminist anti-oppression work—work that has centuries of history. Part of her definition includes “committed to survival and wholeness of entire people, male and female.” This makes me think of bell hooks’ definition of feminism in her book Feminist Theory, From Margin To Center (2000): “Feminism is the struggle to end sexist oppression. Its aim is not to benefit solely any specific group of women, any particular race or class of women. It does not privilege women over men. It has the power to transform in a meaningful way all of our lives.”

In 1996, Patricia Hill Collins published a paper, What’s In A Name: Womanism, Black Feminism and Beyond that examined the contradictions, details, and meanings in the terms “womanist” versus “black feminist.” Thirty years later from the word “womanist” surfacing to join the term “black feminist,” many Black women choose either term, both terms, or neither term, but are still actively engaged in anti-oppression praxis. The latter is the key. Though I defend a politics of social location (as Kimberlé Crenshaw articulates) in terms of labeling, the latter matters more than the label alone in this case.

Seeing this exchange on Twitter made me once again realize that even for men who might dislike or even despise feminism, to them, it’s still White women’s work. That’s all they know. How often are the contributions of Black women during The Civil Rights Movement and The Feminist Movement of that era marginalized despite us being critical to both? I’ve grown fairly tired of the Black = man and woman = White concept that willfully and virulently persists in every fabric of American society, even amidst movements that are theoretically progressive. Must the face of any progressive movement be the person with the most privilege? It persists today.

The fact that Black women, especially ones who identify as “womanist” (like me), who are concerned about the lot of all people (which has a focus that includes Black men, though said focus doesn’t NOT include applauding patriarchy, patriarchal masculinity, phallocentrism, sexism, misogynoir or male privilege) yet another (as I’ve witness this many times throughout my lifetime) Black man had no clue about it did make me sad a bit. Not angry. Sad. Because…even Alice Walker herself admitted to feelings of miseducation after college (she’s written about her youth, leaving Spelman because of intraracial paternalism yet feeling like she wasn’t exposed enough to Black women’s writing at Sarah Lawrence—if this isn’t an illustration of the manifestations of intersectionality and education itself—what is?) and how she studied more, on her own. Thus, if a genius as herself (with a college education) didn’t have all of the tools right away, I can’t assume that any other people do, especially on any topic that’s a direct threat to the status quo, as anti-oppression work such as Womanism is.

It’s just that…when things like this occur, when huge segments of Black women’s legacies are just completely unknown to Black men, I feel as if Black men aren’t really seeing us, again. (It’s not particular to class either; many educated Black people have gaping holes in their historical knowledge of Black people yet layered knowledge of Whites; White supremacy is the culprit here—how it impacts what knowledge is deemed “worthwhile” to be taught in the first place.)

James Baldwin wrote about how Whites have never had to know as much about Blacks or themselves as Blacks have had to know about Whites and themselves. I wonder if this could be applied to men and women? It seems that one of the “gifts” of privilege (whether White privilege or male male privilege) is ignorance, willful or even…accidental. That which involves the oppressed as the focus is deemed less worthy of knowing. Couple it with purposeful obscuring if it challenges the status quo, and it’s rendered invisible. Hopefully I can do my part, by making it visible—by being visible. Not “mainstream” per se; what is ever “mainstream” but that which affirms status quo, with few exceptions? The world knows The Color Purple. However, barely anyone truly knows the breadth of anti-oppression work by Alice Walker in her lifetime. Very few even truly saw The Color Purple for what it is. Many (especially Whites) say “oh, it is so sad!” and that’s it, which let’s me know that they really didn’t see it (film) or most importantly, read it (book). No country for nuance? This is the great travesty—not knowing who we actually are.

I think of “Womanist” as a proper noun and Black feminist theory, intersectional feminism and all anti-oppression work (which today I view collectively as womanism) as nouns that describe the theory and praxis. I view feminism as a plural word, “feminisms.” This allows some of the same basic frameworks—recognition of all humanity, commitment to anti-oppression work for ALL and liberation—to be common to all of them (though we know how White supremacy or Western privilege, for example, can cloud or straight up ignore the “all”) but obviously cultural perspectives allows divergence in interpretation and nuance. Not allowing the latter is antithetical to any true anti-oppression work.

All real words are made up. The word “womanist” is real. Womanism is very real.

(I think about how everyone knows Gloria Steinem’s name yet not Alice Walker’s for anti-oppression work. In 2008, Melissa Harris-Perry had to CHECK Gloria Steinem for not recognizing intersectionality in her discourse on the election. Even Steinem herself said this recently on The View: “I mean Alice Walker…she’s ahead of us all on the path…”)

Related Posts: I Am STILL HERE For Feminism, 7 Attacks On Feminism

Read This Week

This is my 38th Read This Week feature. Each week I recommend essays, articles and/or papers/journals that I’ve recently read; I recommend them based on your interest in the subjects on my blog Gradient Lair. Below are some great reads:

Understanding Patriarchy [PDF] by bell hooks is a concise and informative paper that explains patriarchy, beyond the rigid dictionary definition that people opposed to anti-oppression work use (and coincidentally wouldn’t adhere to for other disciplines or subjects) in order to silence people on the topic. She explains why and how it destroys both men and women, and how it can be upheld by both men and women, though men may reap more “benefits” due to male privilege and sexism against women. IMPORTANT read.

5 MOST Mundane Ways Disavowing Masculinity Changed My Life by Robert Reese of Still Furious and Still Brave is a great read. It’s troubling how deeply patriarchy and patriarchal masculinity is embedded into the smallest actions and behaviors of men. This essay reveals how rejecting what seems small is a BIG step in unlearning patriarchy.

Not Having A Black Pope Is Not A Bad Thing on Womanist Musings is a good read. I too saw some Black people tweet their desperation for a Black pope. I…did not want to see that. This essay perfectly matches my sentiments. She writes: “Just because the face in power looks like yours, does not mean that they are on your side.” Good read.

How “Admissions” Works Differently At For-Profit Colleges: Sorting and Signaling by @tressiemcphd is a GREAT read. She’s doing dissertation research on the for-profit sector of colleges and this essay reveals some interesting things. She writes: “When I teach my undergraduates at my elite, private school they all recognize the for-profit college ads I play to introduce the idea of higher education stratification. I ask them why they did not apply to Everest or Strayer when they were applying to college. They tell me that it’s not a school for people like them. That means they see the same commercials the rest of us see, the ones for-profit students see. But the marketing doesn’t motivate them. The sorting of ‘real’ college and for-profit college, then, has already happened by this point, somehow.” Very important read here, especially where perspectives regarding class are concerned.

Stay tuned for next week’s suggestions!

I Am STILL HERE For Feminism

I am not interesting in abandoning intersectional feminist work as a Womanist just because some White feminists confuse gendered White supremacy for feminism.

Thus, I am not going to applaud White supremacy, racism, White privilege, patriarchy, patriarchal masculinity, phallocentrism, sexism, misogyny, misogynoir, male privilege, classism, class privilege, homophobia, transphobia, heterosexual privilege, ableism, colourism, or any other manifestations of oppression just because some White feminists are racist or mislead by their White privilege (oh and…some of them truly are).

I realize that it is easier to reject Womanism as a Black woman and adhere to the status quo and whenever I am called out on it, I can blame White feminists for being racist as my reason why I abandon this theory and praxis—I get that. OR I can continue to do the work, which involves critiquing kyriarchy even as it may permeate feminism itself since the people involved in feminist work still live in a kyriarchal society just as the ones who are not involved and either consciously and/or subconsciously accept the status quo are.

When I assert that I am still here for feminism, I also mean that I am NOT here for kyriarchal trickery and nonsense using the label “feminism.” Anyone can use a label. The proof is in the praxis. As bell hooks wrote (as @FeministGriote pointed out in her exquisite essay Allow Me To Reintroduce Myself, My Name Is Feminism):

Feminism is the struggle to end sexist oppression. Its aim is not to benefit solely any specific group of women, any particular race or class of women. It does not privilege women over men. It has the power to transform in a meaningful way all of our lives.

And it does. However, it involves the work of imperfect beings, ones that again, live in the same society as those who reject feminism and rationalize oppression through support of the status quo. Thus, it’s about critique and growth within the movement just as much, if not more, than the oppressive society that exists outside of the movement and permeates the movement. (The movement also permeates society. And, this is the work that matters.)

I mean…what do I look like accepting sexism and misogynoir from some Black men because some White women are racist? This doesn’t even make sense to me. Yet some Black women respond to me with this thinking. Conversely, so many Black women aren’t here for ANY oppression. Word.

Now, about calling oneself a “feminist,” that’s up to a person, individually. I am not interested in the labeling itself IF a person is engaged in the work through a critical intersectional perspective. However, since so many oppressive paradigms have labels, ones that aren’t attacked since they reinforce the status quo, I think anti-oppression work can have labels as well, as I believe in a politics of social location, with certain labels, even if labeling itself is an issue of power and labels themselves impact how people are treated in a kyriarchal society.

Just because I am STILL HERE for feminism does NOT mean that I am going to applaud oppressive bullshit amidst the feminist movement and I expect to be called out on my bullshit as well. How else is change going to occur? The idea that feminism is absolute, a destination (versus a journey) and is whatever the lowest common denominator of feminism is, is actually kyriarchal pushback on anti-oppression work.

How we embody the oppressor within is where all feminist work begins. I am still here for feminism because I am still here for myself. I matter. I am still here for feminism because I am still here for us. We matter.

Related Post: 7 Attacks On Feminism

The Academe Was My Introduction To White Supremacist Feminism

A couple of days ago on Twitter, several of the Black women that I follow discussed how their introductions to feminist theory actually came from Black women thinkers, scholars and writers, not White ones. This is salient because a few of them mentioned that if their entry way was through White feminist thought—much of which is not intersectional and masks White supremacist thought on identity for womanhood as feminism— they would have rejected it.

Whenever I speak with a Black woman who adamantly rejects feminism (and certainly, some have no idea what it really is; this word triggers the theme of “man hating” and for them, “Black man hating” is not an option as our racial plight is most certainly shared), she starts naming White feminists and the ones she names often have gaping holes in their theory and praxis where race (and sometimes even class, sexual orientation and gender identity) are concerned. In this case, I cannot blame them. They know nothing of the work of Black feminist thought and feminism then sounds more like a White supremacist ladder, one from White woman to White man, in search of some abstract notion of equality, versus the freedom of choice, the personal empowerment to make those choices, and using said agency (and in many cases, privilege) to empower and ally other oppressed people.

The first time that I started to think about feminism, I wasn’t sure what the word even was. I was 12. I was questioning the gender theatre so prevalent in patriarchal Black churches, and it was the first time I questioned the very concept of theism itself. I suspect that I was leaning towards atheism long before feminism, though embracing the former has scared me more than the latter. While Black feminists certainly aren’t welcomed in the Black community with open arms, Black atheists, and Black female atheists are in the margins of a margin of a margin. While I will tell anyone who will listen that I am a Womanist, I do have some trepidation about identification as an atheist agnostic who is highly skeptical.

Later in early adulthood, my doorway into Black feminist thought was bell hooks. Exploring some of her early work made me thirst for more and recognizing feminist elements in the powerful fiction of some of the most brilliant Black women writers including Toni Morrison, Alice Walker and many more, I realized that they seem to truly speak my life. And, this life wasn’t solely one of gender or solely one of race.

Even as this was occurring, trying to reconcile some of the White supremacist notions that literally choke feminism as theory was occurring. In my very last semester of undergrad, Spring 2001, I enrolled in a course called Introduction to Women’s Studies. I usually stuck to the natural sciences and psychological sciences more than the sociological sciences, but by this point, my interest in Black feminist theory made me think that this course would be a great place to commingle my ideas and thoughts with other women. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

A women’s studies course where we couldn’t discuss intersectionality, where White privilege was a topic that made the discussions explode, where feminism outside of the United States borders became a Western privilege-drenched topic of how “we” can “save” those “other” women, a course where Black women’s literature was minimal, was truly uncomfortable at times and angering at others. I felt like I was an outsider, begging for “admission” to feminism and these white women had to “approve” and no matter what my views were, they would be deemed contrary to their feminist objectives. But as one of my favorite young thinkers and writers Tressie McMillan Cottom posits, “Black women do not have to earn feminism. If anything, feminism should be earning Black women.” I felt like an outsider discussing women in this class, in the way that I feel like an outsider discussing race with Black men. It’s always about whomever has the most privilege when two people are juxtaposed; they become “the face” of the issue. Black men are the face of Blackness. White women are the face of womanhood. (Cisgender White men are the face of the LGBTQ community.) The only problem is that one face can never reveal all of the expressions of many faces—of many lives.

The memory of this course still stings. It was one of the most awful experiences of an otherwise fairly interesting (though complicated at times) and pleasant undergraduate experience. The problem for me is 12 years and in between that time a Master’s degree later, I still find myself navigating through feminism that is not inclusive, not intersectional and marred by White supremacist thought—not actively extremist, but extremism is only one tiny part of White supremacy. White women taking the “we know best, we will speak for you, your definition of womanhood should be ours and we will be as ahistorical as possible when confronting employment, sexuality, beauty and empowerment etc. when it comes to you Black women” stance makes feminist progress quite challenging. It doesn’t mean that I abandon feminism as a Womanist (see #6 in a previous post); it means that the theory and praxis AMONG feminists must face as much evaluation, dissection and improvement as the challenges that feminists approach in deconstruction, challenging and changing kyriarchy itself. In fact, feminism becomes a part of kyriarchy IF this feminism is White supremacist.

There are White feminists out there who reject feminist thought if it is shaped by White supremacy. They study intersectionality; they embrace it in theory and praxis. Still though, the fact that the word “feminist” still evokes the concept of a man-hating White supremacist is problematic and it cannot be solely blamed on the impact of White supremacist capitalist patriarchy on the media and education, though their roles are quite large. There are STILL TOO MANY White feminists, especially ones with literary, social, legislative and business power who approach feminism this way and only view Black women (and other women of colour) as “soldiers” for “their cause” and objects to posit as examples of the failures of feminism, not any of the successes of feminism.

Related Posts: “No One Is Above Critique”, Whiteness Is NOT Universal, White Feminists Who Think Of Michelle Obama’s Identity As An Assault On Their Own Identities, White Women and White Privilege: Telling Them NO

“No One Is Above Critique”

No one is above critique. This is a phrase that I too use quite often because it’s true. However, Black women face a level of critique and scrutiny that is unmatched. We’re deemed the problem of Blackness. We’re deemed the “others” that the label “woman” rarely includes. It’s not a coincidence that Michelle Obama has faced more critique for her appearance, figure/weight, interests and for not being the “feminist mascot” of White women’s dreams than President Obama has faced for authorizing drone warfare. 

So…excuse me if some of the latest garbage rolled up into critique against popular Black women, whether fictional characters or real stars are ones I am not always interested in.

My favorite writer bell hooks’ writes about “loving critique.” She engages in it, critically. I’ve studied much of her work. I’ve NEVER felt ASSAULTED by her critiques on Black women regarding love, dating, marriage, friendships, mother/daughter relationships, art/media, education and our very approaches to feminism themselves.

However, many critiques on Black women RARELY come from a place of anything other than racially sexist hatred and Schadenfreude. They rarely come from a place for the desire for growth and evolution for us. They exist primarily to make sure that our place amidst society remains at the bottom, under the hatred of White men, the anger of Black men, the sneers of White women, and below all other people or colour who happened to be placed above us amidst the hierarchy that White supremacy creates. Oh and…one mustn’t forget that even at the bottom, there’s still hierarchy….with us scrambling for placement based on presumed worth based on complexion, sexuality, weight, socioeconomics, ability, age and belief system.

When people in a position of privilege (i.e. White women critiquing Black women [White privilege], Black men critiquing Black women [male privilege], heterosexuals critiquing LGBTQ community [heterosexual privilege]) critique a person NOT in that same position, they need to realize HOW their privilege impacts their perspectives which impacts their critiques. The colourblind/gender-blind/sexuality-blind nonsense that some proselytize is an acute form of liberal ignorance. This doesn’t mean that they cannot critique. Of course they can. This means they need to examine WHY they are critiquing, HOW they are doing it and IF they have any actual connection to the community they seek to critique. For example, I don’t want to read an article where a Black man who doesn’t like Black women and thinks White women are “better” decides to critique Black women with concepts meant to reinforce White supremacist capitalist patriarchy and then calls us “unreasonable” in regards to dating. Of course he has a right to an opinion; I can then call that opinion bullshit and critique that critique. I am not interested in critiques of Black women from White “feminists” who are White supremacists and feel that their very placement at the top of society and their identity are under attack whenever a Black woman excels, even if that Black woman is figuring out feminist ideology herself. Feminism is a continuum—a journey, not an absolute destination.

One thing that I realized yesterday (via Twitter) is that many of the critiques regarding Beyoncé on colourism and Eurocentric beauty memes have better accuracy than ones regarding feminism. Why? Because Black women are making the critiques on the former and are acutely aware of how colourism manifests in our lives; we live it. These women have no more privilege (in terms of race, not class) than Beyoncé does and many aren’t invested in her destruction. The latter critiques are often bad as they do not recognize how Beyoncé may affirm patriarchy at times but also challenges it in ways that many pop stars DO NOT. I repeat; she often challenges it in many ways that many pop stars DO NOT. And, I mention “pop stars” because Beyoncé is in her lane. She may never be bell hooks. Further, White supremacy clouds many of the White feminist critiques on her. She doesn’t exist solely as a rubric of feminist progress or problem in our society and it is an unfair burden to place on any one individual; society as a whole needs progress. It would be like claiming that Black people have “overcome” because President Obama is Black; as if that matters to those in Prison Industrial Complex, are a part of the 14% unemployment rate for Blacks and who have 1/22 of the familial wealth of Whites.

(I must say that I find amusement over her tour being named “The Mrs. Carter Show;” people are angered that she didn’t use her “maiden” name. Look at that last phrase. “Maiden” name. Research that. Then, realize that her lineage, like most, is patrilineal. Knowles is her FATHER’S name. Even if she were from a single parent home and had her mother’s last name Beyincé, that still comes from her mother’s FATHER (Lumis Albert Beyincé). Patriarchy via blood or marriage certificate really becomes moot, in terms of naming a show anyway. On paper, both her and Jay-Z have the last name Knowles-Carter. He took her last name as well—something that I am sure certain circles of patriarchal people would call “weak” or homophobically call “gay.” (I think it’s pretty awesome that he did this.) Further, it makes sense that her show is titled this way if she is performing songs from 4 as that album sounds mostly like a long love ballad to her husband. The sheer act of having a husband isn’t anti-feminist, by the way.)

I critique critiques. I always need to know what’s really there…and what motivates them. I’m always interested in who is behind the curtain and what their goal truly is. Not even critiques are above critique.

7 Attacks On Feminism

1) It is a most dangerous false equalization to state that feminism is just as “extreme” as patriarchy. It is a lie. Women who embrace feminism do not seek to dominate, control, or hurt men in the way that a patriarchal society allows men to hurt women. This lie is shoveled around so that men, who do not suffer from sexism but are wounded by the limiting and absolute nature that they’re expected to perform masculinity in a patriarchal society, will reject feminism AND do everything they can to encourage women, either through rhetoric and lies or force and violence, to reject it as well.

2) Pro-life feminism is a construction created by a patriarchal society as a direct attack on feminism. The LIE that anti-choice and pro-birth narratives help women and are affirming to women’s existences, when all they do is reaffirm patriarchal control on women’s bodies is like some sort of ridiculous and sinister reaction formation defense mechanism turned ideology. Just blatantly take that which stands at odds with women and call it “good” then skip off into the forest as if nothing has happened? What’s next? “Pro-domestic violence feminism,” since it’ll teach women how to be “strong” and “fight back?” These sinister people pushing this should stop and simply admit their position, as it is not truly in the interest of women.

3) Violent men who “apologize” are now feminists. Really? Are White feminists so desperate for White male allies who aren’t saying anything that they themselves haven’t said that they will privilege their Whiteness and maleness so high that violence is over-looked so that they can have a “male feminist leader?” Is the feminist community as a leader the space where violent White men need to work out their demons? Is saying that they have privilege “checking” that privilege or is moving away from a leadership position altogether actually doing it? White feminists cannot crave male allies so bad that they allow this nonsense. Further, race plays a factor as there is no way violent Black men who “apologize” then use social media to bully any feminists who don’t accept their leadership would be allowed such a position. In fact, many White feminists react differently to violent White men in the public eye versus Black ones.

4) Even the slightest, non-aggressive gesture by a man is deemed feminist. Yes, it’s us Black feminist theorists I’m looking at here. Black women deal with so much, in general, that a man “not” doing something blatantly misogynist or aggressive gets applauded as some major feminist achievement, even when it is not. Benevolent sexism is NOT feminism. Love is raising the bar, not accepting “anything” as more than what it actually is. And, because some Black men know that the bar is so low, in many cases, this is exploited. Men who aren’t really feminists use this to their advantage to exploit Black women, especially younger feminists, pursuing sexual relationships under the guise of her “exploring” her sexuality and even claim that her not doing so means that she isn’t really “progressive.”

5) Feminism and the LGBT community are blamed as what’s holding Black people back or are called Eurocentic. This is hideous bigotry and oversimplification that some anti-racism, pro-sexism/pro-homophobia Black men (and women) engage in. As bell hooks writes:

Many heterosexual black men in white supremacist patriarchal culture have acted as though the primary “evil” of racism has been the refusal of the dominant culture to allow them full access to patriarchal power, so that in sexist terms they are compelled to inhabit a sphere of powerlessness deemed “feminine” and have thus perceived themselves as emasculated. To the extent that black men accept a white supremacist sexist representation of themselves as castrated, without phallic power, and therefor pseudofemales, they will need to overly assert phallic misogynist masculinity, one rooted in contempt for the female. Much of black male homophobia is rooted in the desire to eschew connection with all things deemed “feminine,” and that would, of course, include black gay men.

6) “I don’t claim feminism since all feminists don’t get along.” Um…neither did everyone during The Civil Rights movement. I see this one surface from women anytime two feminists (male or female) disagree on something. These women are suggesting that feminism is a farce and those disagreeing are being “catty” (a sexist term, actually) and thus it invalidates the theory and praxis. Further, by dissociating themselves away from feminism for this reason, they maintain the comfortability of the status quo and illusion that embracing patriarchy means that they’ll be more appealing to the men who are at odds with feminists as well. The reality is a misogynist man is going to bash a feminist or a woman who identifies with patriarchy. They tend to bash both without regard, unless using one against the other, often with fake compliments as tools.

7) We’re all women, so intersectionality is not needed. This one isn’t new but continually resurfaces as some cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied middle class White women want feminism to remain their plaything and they aren’t considering the words of Sojourner Truth, Alice Walker (WOMANISM…HOLLA!) or Kimberlé Crenshaw; but then again, why would they if feminism is just a White woman’s hobby? Even the feminist space has internal attacks and issues to work through, but the cause makes the work worth it, especially to those willing to do the WORK.