During my childhood in the Deep South — surrounded by antebellum homes, plantations and the residual psychological, physiological and emotional damage of slavery — being called a “woman” was almost considered an insult.  “Woman” implied something basic, crude, unfinished — a woman was nothing if she wasn’t a “lady.”

A “lady” understood the pivotal role she played in the lives of her family and community. She was educated with a clear understanding of Black history in America. She was a civic activist who pushed for societal reform without ever sacrificing her femininity; and she never, ever, ever, engaged in casual sexual experiences — not merely because she was painfully aware of the stereo-typical depictions of Black women as whores and Jezebels, but because she also understood that her body was her temple, not to be sullied by the random hands of those who didn’t respect it’s intrinsic value.

After years of soaking in the works of Toni Morrison, Alice Walker and Zora Neale Hurston, then broadening my scope to Gloria Steinem and Carol Hanisch, I came to the startling realization that “ladyship” was a manipulative creation of men who wanted to define womanhood on their terms, contextualizing the sacred-feminine into a subservient box labeled “My Property.” As a “lady” who had fiercely wrestled with the unapologetic stranglehold of ethnic oppression side-by-side with African-American men from Jena, Louisiana to Los Angeles, California, this was a lightening-rod moment in my evolution as a feminist. I began to slowly inch away from “race” issues, segueing into more aggressive language in my denouncement of patriarchy as opposed to the racialized institution of America at-large.

I joined in the ranks of feminists who believe that sex is just science, abortion is just a medical procedure and love is just a fable. I chuckled with them at the pathetic lives of “ladies” with their archaic morality who would never know what it meant to be the captains of their own fate, forever yoked to men who would never hand over the wheel.  I can say with no hesitation nor regret that it has been exhilarating to both narrow and broaden my focus to women’s issues, joining a global sisterhood that faces mirror image challenges not dependent upon race, religion or economic status, and I remain dedicated to the fight for women liberation around the world; still, I experienced a cognitive dissonance that I’ve only recently been able to define:

I’m still very much that “lady.”

I know too many exceptional men to demonize the whole as the masterminds of a vast patriarchal plot; I’ve witnessed too often the crushing marginalization and disenfranchisement of the African-American community, and I refuse to place that battle on the back-burner, shouldering the broader mantle of feminism instead. I am passionately pro-choice, while still respecting the possibility of an instant connection between mother and unborn child that transcends science. I believe that my body is still sacred and that sex is a gift to be given and received between two people who at the very least have a basic respect for each other and know how to spell each other’s last names.

More importantly, after doing deep introspection while writing “Three White “Hoes” and Betty White: The Unspoken Double Standard,” I realized that feminism in the Black community has very different textures than it does in the White community, and that, I, as a Black woman, do not have the luxury of shrugging off my ethnicity.  Equality, not just for women, but for Black and Brown people around the globe must be achieved; it is critical war that must be fought parallel to eradicating the dehumanizing subjugation and violence that plague all women — and that fact can neither be diminished nor ignored.

In Brenda Verner’s 1994 article, The Power and Glory of Africana Womanism, she states with blinding clarity this budding feeling that’s unfurling within me:

“Africana Womanism in essence says: We love men. We like being women. We love children. We like being mothers… We want families and harmonious relationships. We are not at war with our men seeking money, power and influence through confrontation. Our history is unique. We are the inheritors of African-American women’s history, and as such we shall not redefine ourselves nor that history to meet some politically correct image of a popular culture movement, which demands the right to speak for and redefine the morals and mores of all racial, cultural and ethnic groups.”

This masterfully describes a movement that I believe is taking root among Black feminists, and it is not to be divisive, but to be true to our culture, our heritage and our experiences, while not sacrificing our independence and diversity. This school of thought illuminates that color-blind feminism is a myth and that we can no more shed our “Blackness” than our vaginas. Our scope of activism encompasses our men, our children, our community, as well as ourselves — the historical definition of what is often patronizingly referred to as being a “lady.”

While this may be true — and I own it with the blood, sweat and tears of the many great ladies throughout our collective history that came before me — in the words of sister Sojourner Truth:

“Ain’t I still a woman?”


*Artwork by Dawn Okoro

Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter
  • Isis

    I think feminists are nuts. I see their movement as a kinda lets beat em, join em kinda thing. We cant beat men so lets turn into men. No thanks! I like being a woman and having certain roles. I also see black feminists using feminism to justify the outrageous number of oow births in the black community. They use the movement to justify dysfunction and disguise it as strength. A hot mess

    • Greg

      …and my favorite quote comes at the end:

      “No thanks! I like being a woman and having certain roles. I also see black feminists using feminism to justify the outrageous number of oow births in the black community. They use the movement to justify dysfunction and disguise it as strength. A hot mess”.

    • Socially Maladjusted

      I like being a woman and having certain roles.

      I love being a black man and I want to see people liberated from roles they may not choose.

      You should only be able to define a role for yourself, not impose your ideals on others.

      If you wanna submit to some gay black “patriarchy” which amounts to nothing more than submitting to some lame black male head of household – who himself is impotent and submissive in the face white patriarchy/power, then that’s your business.

      But please don’t delude yourself that you’re doing anything other than upholding the conquest/domination values of white supremacy..

      I also see black feminists using feminism to justify the outrageous number of oow births in the black community.

      What I see are black people divided over the issue of oow births, with blame being slung back and forth in the black community about whose to “blame” for the prevalence of fatherless children.

      But isn’t that discussion completely wrong?

      shouldn’t the question be –

      What can we DO to better meet the needs of our children?

      Two married parents in the home is no garauntee that a child will be better off than with one unmarried parent, if both alternatives are struggling with economic hardship.

      I’d say that the thing that needs to be overcome is the economic hardship –

      not the oow birth.

      Patriarchy – which in the mouths of ‘scholars’ like greg means no more than ‘man is boss of woman’ – doesn’t solve anything, because it doesn’t address any of the real problems that blacks are perpetually contending with..

      Unless we can find someone with the brains to tell us how ‘man is boss of woman’ solves racism, red lining, poor education services, poor health care services, economic marginalization, etc etc rar.



    • Greg


  • I really like the author’s honest and serious grappling with race and racism as it relates to feminism. The reflection is poignant and real and demonstrates that feminism is not one size fits all. That said, I sincerely hope that Africana womanism is not becoming a new trend in Black feminism. Steeped as it is in both essentialist notions of race and Blackness and given its stridently homophobic proclivities (as articulated by it’s founder Clenora Hudson-Weems in the 1980s), I think a move toward AW is a step backwar rather than forwards for Black Feminism. I absolutely get with the author’s desire for a culturally relevant and historically grounded conception of feminism, but I think there are loads of feminist and womanist (not of the Africana ilk, but more in the tradition of Alice Walker) who have done that work. I’d be interested to know if/how work by Patricia Hill Collins, Beverly Guy-Sheftall, Anna Julia Cooper, Joan Morgan, Layli Phillips,and Aaronete White informs the author’s thinking on these issues. That said, onward and upward, Sis.

    p.s. The Betty White piece was fya!

    • Kirsten West Savali

      Thank you so much, Crunktastic. I appreciate this comment so much because you really understand that this an exploration, not a complete acceptance of African Womanism in it’s entirety but the cultural relevance therein. Same as with feminism — not a sweeping indictment, but an examination of it’s superficiality as it pertains to nuanced racial issues.

      I have serious plans to study more about it. One negative that I found on first glance was it’s reliance on religion, and saying that an “African woman relies on God and the Bible.” I’m very curious to see if this particular movement is willing to embrace agnosticism/atheism, or is Christianity a prerequisite to affiliation.

      Also, I’m passionate about rights and equality and respect for the LGBT community. Homophobia has no space in my life — I can’t even deal with that kind of bigoted energy around me.

      Based on what you’ve presented, it seems that Africana Womanisn falls victim to a lot of the prejudices rooted in religion that continue to taint our community.. Now even more intrigued to dig beneath the surface…

      See what you’ve done lol!

      Thanks again for the reads. :-)


  • Socially Maladjusted

    I’m just gonna say that I’d prefer to see people drop the “ist” and “ism” labels they give themselves, except perhaps when those are inclusive of both sexes and stress collectivity over me me me and action over introspection.


    Isn’t it enough that we’re forced to compete against other identity driven causes (many with dubious claims, eg the LBGT movement) to have our concerns get a reading in mainstream politics?

    I don’t believe that’s an accident. The tactic is straigtforward – undermine those elements in the society with the most revolutionary potential by drowning their voices in a sea of (nonsense) competing claims.

    What purpose is served by breaking ourselves up into even smaller identity factions of black woman vs black man – don’t we have more in common with each other as blacks than we do with non-blacks on gender?


    Some women just love to nag.


  • Socially Maladjusted

    The most admirable and strongest feature of the Occupy Movement is its inclusivity, brilliantly articulated in its headline slogan – “We are the 99%”.

    Occupy refuses to be boxed politically and refuses to allow any single issue faction to hijack the class struggle.

    I think John Pilger perfectly sums up where feminists and their LGBT cohorts have lost the plot –

    “True feminists understand that liberation is impossible while ordinary people, women and men, are divided in the face of the common enemy.”

    • Greg