White women’s linguistic erasure of black women served their own political interests

Evidence

White feminists did not challenge the racist-sexist tendency to use the word “woman” to refer solely to white women; they supported it. For them it served two purposes. First, it allowed them to proclaim white men world oppressors while making it appear linguistically that no alliance existed between white women and white men based on shared racial imperialism. Second, it made it possible for white women to act as if alliances did exist between themselves and non-white women in our society, and by so doing they could deflect attention away from their classism and racism. Had feminists chosen to make explicit comparisons between the status of white women and that of black people, or more specifically the status of black women and white women, it would have been more than obvious that the two groups do not share an identical oppression. It would have been obvious that similarities between the status of women under patriarchy and that of any slave or colonized person do not necessarily exist in a society that is both racially and sexually imperialistic. In such a society, the woman who is seen as inferior because of her sex can also be seen as superior because of her race, even in relationship to men of another race. — bell hooks, Ain’t I a Woman_ Black Women and
, 416

Categorization

  • XREF: The idea that women oppressed by sex can still be superior by race foreshadows and challenges later notions of sisterhood; connects to Angela Davis’s and other Black socialist feminist critiques of white women’s complicity. — connects to: Early second-wave feminism was dominated by white women who excluded black women — bell hooks, Ain’t I a Woman_ Black Women and
, 405; White feminists’ self-victimization rhetoric served their opportunistic interests — bell hooks, Ain’t I a Woman_ Black Women and
, 421; The women-and-blacks analogy erased black women by equating women with whites (+19 more)

Broader Connections