💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › trudy-explanation-of-misogynoir.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:16:58. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Explanation Of Misogynoir Author: Trudy Date: April 28th, 2014 Language: en Topics: racism, misogyny Source: https://www.gradientlair.com/post/84107309247/define-misogynoir-anti-black-misogyny-moya-bailey-coined
Misogynoir is a word used to describe how racism and anti-Blackness
alter the experience of misogyny for Black women, specifically. It
alludes to specifically Black women’s experiences with gender and how
both racism and anti-Blackness alters that experience diametrically from
White women (as anti-Blackness and White supremacy make White women the
“norm” in terms of intersectional experiences with gender, even as
solely via gender, misogyny harms all women) and differently from
non-Black women of colour (as though they face racism, the
dehumanization associated with anti-Blackness is more than racism or
sexualized objectification alone, but speaks to the history of Black
bodies and lives treated as those of non-persons). I recently saw a
thread of false information and non-Black women of colour co-opting to
erase Black womanhood, Black women’s experiences and Black women’s
epistemology from the concept of misogynoir. Again, the origin is in
Black womanhood and the term was coined by a queer Black woman, Moya
Bailey. (If anyone says it was coined by me, Trudy, or my blog Gradient
Lair, they’re incorrect.)
“Misogynoir” is not expandable and consumable under the term “women of
colour." "Black women” and “women of colour” overlap as identifiers only
because Black women can be considered women of colour (in addition to
other non-Black women of colour) and because Loretta Ross, a Black woman
no less, and her work, is why the phrase “women of colour” exists.
"Black woman" and “woman of colour” are not synonyms to be used
interchangeably. “Women of colour” is a political identity of
theoretical solidarity of non-White women because of the impact of White
supremacy, racism and White privilege on non-White women. However, it is
not also a racial classification in the way that “Black woman” is. Black
women’s experiences do not then become non-Black women of colour’s
experiences to co-opt and commodify as “women of colour” just like they
don’t then become White women’s experiences to co-opt and commodify as
“women.” The very notion that this co-opt is acceptable is a violent
notion and anti-Blackness. Co-opt through context-stripped
generalization is erasure and is not intersectionality. Erasure is
violence. Misogynoir is not about non-Black women of colour or White
women; period. Misogyny impacts women. Racialized misogyny impacts women
of colour. Misogynoir impacts Black women because of misogyny and
dehumanization through anti-Blackness.
Below is information about misogynoir (and yes, the post is long but
that does not mean anyone has the right to modify this content) so that
when you as a Black woman notice erasure of our experiences occurring–or
even willingly/unwillingly participate in our own erasure by assuming
that “solidarity” means that non-Black women should have the right to
consume and co-opt though they do not experience what anti-Blackness
causes–you can have a reference, if you are not already aware of all
that is below.
Origin: The term “misogynoir” was coined by Black feminist scholar Moya
Bailey. She used the term in an essay on Crunk Feminist Collective years
ago where she discussed music and specific anti-Black misogyny. Moya
mentioned that the term is “to describe the particular brand of hatred
directed at Black women in American visual and popular culture." This
misogyny is informed by a specifically Black experience, not just
because of racism and White supremacy, but because of anti-Black
projections from non-Black people onto Black people and thereby
internalized and proliferated by Black people. It does not mean that
only Black men or only Black people are capable of misogyny nor does it
justify anti-Black attitudes or racism against Black people; such an
interpretation by a non-Black person is violently anti-Black. Thus, this
anti-Black misogyny or misogynoir is something Black women experience
intraracially and interracially. Because pop culture does not exist in a
vacuum and actually creates/reflects culture, as a Black woman who
experiences stereotypes, violence, oppression and dehumanization unique
to Black women’s bodies, experiences, lives and histories, it is my
evaluation that the term and what Moya wrote about it clearly expands
beyond pop culture itself. The term has been used in an academic context
as well, including in a scholarly journal article "New Terms Of
Resistance” by Moya Bailey.
Etymology: “Misogynoir” relates to the word “misogyny;" miso-: hater,
gyn-: woman, noir: Black. It’s a hybrid word and -e is not currently
used on the end; it was not used on the end when Moya Bailey coined the
term. In that "womanism” and “intersectionality” were not considered
“real words” before they existed (as with any word, really) and face
specific devaluation, co-opt and erasure since the origins are Black
women’s lived experiences and knowledge, so does “misogynoir” face this.
Deconstruction of arguments against the word “misogynoir”: The arguments
against the word itself are all rooted in hegemony, White supremacy, and
anti-Blackness and include:
1) That the word is “made up." All words are made up, including all of
the words–whether pop culture or anti-oppression terminology and
concepts that speak to Black experiences–that non-Black people
appropriate from Black people, especially from Black Americans, while
denying Black humanity and Black American cultural significance.
2) That the word is not etymologically "correct.” False. There are
plenty of words that have mixed root origins and are hybrid words.
English itself is not etymologically “pure.”
3) That Black women are “appropriating” French people by using -noir
suffix. This is painfully ahistorical, anti-intersectional and
incredibly anti-Black. One only has to think of how and why Black women
in America got here and speak English (which is informed by romance
languages such as French) to know why such an assertion is inaccurate.
Further, being that language itself has been weaponized against Black
people, reclamation of language as subversive to hegemony is important.
4) Some people desire an -e be placed on the end. Moya Bailey did not do
that when she coined the term; I’m not interested in altering her work.
Further, I don’t think this is necessary since -gyn indicates gender and
race itself is not gendered; multiple genders of people inhabit the same
races. Also, adding the -e made me think it might feel too cis focused
if the word was “feminized” in two places (as there is a history of some
feminists altering certain words to exclude trans women). Clearly Black
trans women face (trans)misogynoir as their experiences have distinction
from cis Black women and non-Black trans women, while overlapping in
other areas. I’m not suggesting Black trans women have to use this word;
as a cis Black woman it’s not my place. I’m just referring to what I
learned from their own words (via their writing/talks) about their own
experiences.
Definition: Specifically anti-Black misogyny. Race and gender
intersectionally are factors, and specifically Blackness in terms of
race, because of how anti-Blackness makes Black women’s experiences
distinct from non-Black women; from White women and non-Black women of
colour. While anti-Black sentiments impact all Black people, because of
how Black women experience gender–as “non-women” via forceful
masculinization as violence (including of cis Black women, which is why
cis privilege has to be discussed with nuance when anti-Blackness is a
factor; when Black women are denied womanhood, it’s used as an excuse to
justify violence against us) not via self-identification as empowerment
(as some Black people do not identify as “women” or “men”) and as sexual
chattel via hypersexualization that reduces Black womanhood to a sexual
object with non-person status because of gender in addition to
race–misogynoir is conceptualized as a way to explain how it’s more than
racist misogyny or even objectification but complete dehumanization as a
“contradiction” to White womanhood and as something non-Black women of
colour are placed “above” even as they’re placed “below” White women.
This type of misogyny exists based on binary with White women (who still
face general misogyny) where White women represent “good” womanhood and
Black women do not in any comparison. In others, it alludes to
hierarchical levels that include other women of colour, but only insofar
as Black women are placed at the bottom because of anti-Blackness. This
binary creates invisibility for Black women’s pain and hypervisibility
for what are deemed inherent flaws based on Black womanhood, as the
ultimate conception of “non-womanhood,” as possessed by a woman. This is
why even with cis privilege, cis Black women are masculinized as a tool
of violence and hypersexualized as a tool of violence; as undesirable
objects to be controlled and disposed of and as hyper-desirable objects
for sexual use and disposal, simultaneously.
This is also why Black trans women face a rate of violence unmatched by
anyone in the LGBTQIA community. Even as relevant statistics are labeled
as “trans women” and “trans women of colour” many times Blackness is a
major altering factor. The violence enacted against Black trans women is
a culmination of racism, anti-Blackness and State violence against Black
bodies as non-persons in general, misogynistic violence against women,
racist misogynistic violence against women of colour, misogynoiristic
violence against Black women, transmisogyny specifically against trans
women, intraracial-oppression based on the transphobic notion that Black
trans women’s identities “betray” Black masculinity which already is
allowed little space to exist because of White supremacy, racism and
anti-Blackness, classism/poverty, and violence specific to them being
Black trans women, which earlier I referred to (trans)misogynoir.
This hypervisibility is forced and a tool of violence against Blackness
itself. For non-Black people of colour to assert that this
hypervisibility that connects to the dehumanization of Black people via
anti-Blackness and White supremacy is the choice of Black women or any
Black people is anti-Black and thereby inherently violent. Thus, because
of anti-Blackness and misogyny together, regardless of the misogyny that
non-Black women experience (which is still misogyny and still should be
fought against)–the history of Black dehumanization into chattel, the
relative state of non-personhood ascribed upon Blackness today and the
construct of beauty itself being articulated against Blackness and
specifically against Black womanhood–misogynoir speaks to Black women’s
experiences uniquely. Thus, there is much sociopolitics existing and
occurring before this brand of hatred that is misogynoir shapes visual
and popular culture, and then that same media shapes sociopolitics on a
consistent feedback loop.
“Misogynoir” can include Black women’s experiences outside of the U.S.
because anti-Blackness, sexism and misogyny have a global impact for
Black women, albeit how it impacts requires an understanding beyond
thinking of White supremacy as only “western” or racism as only
“American.” It also requires thinking of the impact of anti-Blackness
even when White supremacy is only a factor in a place indirectly
(because of the impact of the West on other cultures, economies,
politics) not necessarily seated in visible local culture and power.
However, this inclusion should not come at the price of erasure of
uniquely Black American conceptions, ideas, culture and experiences as
the descendants of enslaved Black people.
Misogynoir, interracially: Controlling images (i.e. Jezebel, mammy,
Sapphire), stereotypes (i.e. welfare queen, welfare mother, emasculating
matriarch, mule, gold digger, prostitute [where sex work is used as an
automatic tool of degradation via anti-Blackness and must be examined
intersectionally, not via a cis White middle class lens]) and archetypes
(i.e. Angry Black Woman, Strong Black Woman) are all racist, sexist,
misogynistic, misogynoiristic, ableist, some classist and all anti-Black
constructions. They exist to make Black women not just harmed, insulted,
objectified and oppressed, but to reify the non-human status of Black
women when juxtaposed to non-Black women. This is not only in
juxtaposition to White women, because anti-Blackness allows non-Black
women of colour use these constructions as weapons against Black women
and assert the claim that “protection” is needed “from” Black women’s
“anger” while pretending said weapon was not enacted. Non-Black people
of colour can be anti-Black whether they are seeking White approval and
adjacency or not. An appeal to White supremacy isn’t inherently required
to be anti-Black.
Misogynoir, intraracially: Anti-Black sentiments are internalized just
as other oppressive ones are and require deconstruction. Misogynoir
intraracially is proliferated with colourism, fat shaming, classism,
ableism, homophobia, transmisogyny (i.e. when Laverne Cox is street
harassed and asked is she “a nigga” [transmisogyny in a Black cultural
context] or “a bitch” [misogynoir in a Black cultural context] literally
no one else on Earth but a Black trans woman would experience that;
period) and other oppressions. By possessing an intraracial value system
that mirrors external oppressors (i.e. using the same stereotypes about
Black motherhood, sexuality, dating, beauty etc. as society does in
general), the value of Black women is challenged and not solely by Black
men, but by Black people, in general. However, because of how cis,
heterosexual, and male privilege function, cishet Black men have
privilege over Black women and can reward/punish through patriarchal
norms and violence, even as Black men face other oppressions (including
racism that Black women also face). This can be seen in intraracial
spaces that Black men are expected to dominate and control, such as the
home, the Black Church, community organizations (who organizes versus
who is seen/lead), Black cultural production (i.e. hip hop, comedy,
film), the budding business of “relationship advice” as a secular space
of Black male domination in the way the Church is, and public social
space (i.e. street harassment) in communities. (Black men can enact male
privilege interracially as well, even as they can experience
anti-Blackness and racism from non-Black women. Examples include
protection via patriarchal culture and college athletics, male dominated
social spaces, and domination through sexual violence.)
Black men who are not cishet can engage in misogynoir against Black
women in general and including through avenues where their opinions are
valued more, i.e. beauty politics and Black women’s bodies. They still
have male privilege, though how it can be enacted varies from cishet
Black men. Black men do not have to sexually desire Black women to
engage in misogynoir. Black men can face oppression and also be
oppressors. They do not have to have White privilege and do not have to
have class privilege to do so. Black women also can internalize and
proliferate misogynoiristic constructs of Black womanhood as a way to
align with the Black male gaze through distinguishing themselves from
other Black women and can even mistake this distinguishing for feminist
politics. Black women who are not cishet can also harbor anti-femme
attitudes and ones specifically shaped by Blackness and womanhood.
Retroactive examination of Black women’s knowledge/lived experiences: To
further articulate misogynoir with a retroactive and current view, here
are some examples to review: gender and enslavement [X], Sojourner
Truth’s unique predicament as a Black female slave who faced unique
violence that differed from White women and enslaved Black men [X],
three primary areas of oppressions for Black women, which includes
visual culture [X], the impact of the politics of respectability on
Black blues women, creating misogynoiristic interpretations of their
work, only to be revered and appropriated post-mortem [X], the impact of
anti-Blackness and White supremacy on conceptions of Black motherhood
that makes misogynoiristic interpretations of Black motherhood deemed
acceptable [X], the exploitation of Black women’s knowledge, bodies,
politics and lives by mainstream feminism [X], how anti-Blackness shapes
the heterosexual Black male gaze [X], how specifically anti-Black
misogyny impacts Black women’s reproductive justice [X].
Deconstruction of arguments against the concept of misogynoir: The most
simplistic assertions are ones that seek to generalize and erase how
Blackness impacts womanhood and how womanhood impacts Blackness for
Black women. Using this term “misogynoir” to speak specifically on Black
women’s experiences does receive pushback from Black men (under the
belief that intraracial patriarchal violence and domination should not
be spoken of and that male privilege does not exist if Black men face
racism while they proliferate misogynoir in visual culture), from White
women (for whom mainstream feminism and womanhood itself is centralized
on and any mention of the lived experiences of Black women that cannot
be co-opted or consumed are deemed "divisive,“ and without
accountability for their role in the violence against Black women when
they use myths of White purity and delicacy against Black women), from
non-Black women of colour (who claim the experiences of Black women, use
Black women’s epistemology yet are anti-Black and aren’t relentlessly
interrogating anti-Blackness), from non-Black people of colour in
general (through anti-Blackness, making Black people accountable for our
own oppression, oppression which includes hypervisibility as a weapon
against Blackness) and by White men (who dismiss the way White
supremacist capitalist patriarchy has allowed them to enact unspeakable
violence with near impunity against Black women’s bodies, as they own
the avenues by which misogynoir is proliferated in visual culture and
media). Derailment, gaslighting, co-opting, appropriation and erasure
are to be expected when Black women speak of anti-Black misogyny (which
some people accept exist) as misogynoir (which some people won’t accept
once formally articulated as the word "misogynoir,” as a method of
erasure of Black women’s epistemology).
Misogynoir is NOT womanism in that it can be claimed as a politic by
non-Black women of colour: While womanism as politics of resistance,
knowledge and wholeness was originally conceptualized by Alice Walker
about Black women and she included non-Black women of colour, this is
NOT at the price of erasure of Black women, particularly Black American
women, for whom Alice Walker originally spoke this about, and NOT at the
price that non-Black women of colour can engage in anti-Blackness while
claiming Black women’s politics of resistance. Anti-Blackness is not
acceptable in womanism; it is violence. Further, the term “womanism” is
in no way for White women to claim. This is violence as well, for an
oppressor to claim the politics that the oppressed use to resist
oppression. Womanism is specifically about the resistance against racist
oppression (particularly racism and anti-Blackness) on gender in
addition to intersecting oppressions. Also, womanism was coined by a
queer Black woman; interracially or intraracially trying to remove the
experiences of queer Black women, Black trans women, and Black
genderfluid or intersex people must be interrogated. (And womanism is
not specifically theist.) Black men can identify as womanists, but
womanism cannot center on Black male politics of domination; only on a
politics of liberation for all Black people where Black women’s
experiences and knowledge are centered.
However, misogynoir is NOT about resistance; it is naming the actual
violence that Black women uniquely face for which a politics like
womanism would be needed. Thus, it is not a term to be expanded in any
way because anti-Blackness speaks to Black experiences specifically, and
misogynoir speaks to Black women’s experiences specifically. The lived
experiences of Black women who create the terms, scholarship and ideas
to express these experiences are not products to shopped for and
consumed. It is anti-Black to do this while uncentering Black women from
these experiences. Even if uncentering is not the intent of a non-Black
woman of colour, co-opt automatically erases Black women because of
anti-Blackness; Black women are automatically no longer considered
central to their own experiences but the “lighter” or “better” or “more
feminine” non-Black woman of colour is then deemed central. There is no
“solidarity” with non-Black women of colour, “unity” with Black men or
“allyship” with White women when the erasure of Black women must occur.
On the appropriation of Blackness as a “consumable product”: A great
deal of anti-oppression scholarship has been created by/articulated by
Black women, even as this is purposely erased. See the concepts
“intersectionality” (Kimberlé Crenshaw, though before her, from
Sojourner Truth through Combahee River Collective you can see remnants
of interlocking identity facets spoken of), “womanism” (Alice Walker)
and “matrix of domination” (Patricia Hill Collins) as examples of Black
women’s knowledge regularly stripped from its origin and meanings. The
very concept of “anti-Blackness” itself? Not accidental. See Frank B.
Wilderson III, Hortense Spillers, Saidiya Haartman, and Jared Sexton to
start. Also so_treu (like this Storify) and strugglingtobeheard (like
this essay) on Tumblr discuss this quite a bit, with exquisite nuance.
It’s not just pop culture where Black people experience the most
cultural pilfering but even in anti-oppression scholarship, ideas and
praxis. It’s not a matter of “possession” over the words themselves but
the fact that these are not just words. These are concepts used to
describe real lived experiences and knowledge and erasing them from the
origin via co-opt, generalization, appropriation and misattribution are
acts of violence.
Non-Black women need to question why must they use Black women’s
experiences as a stepping stone for their own by which erasure for Black
women always occurs. Why must Blackness be consumed and why must Black
women be the primary laborers of anti-oppression thought before any
expression of oppression as an experience can occur? This is based on
the notion of Black people especially Black Americans as non-persons,
only existing for consumption and a pathway by which non-Black people
can explain their own lives. Think about why people deem it acceptable
to pilfer and shop from Blackness as if we are a bill of goods meant for
consumption and cultural appropriation, and not human–not people who
actually think, create, speak and live our own experiences in a way so
relevant that everyone must consume it, yet people think consumption
alone is “solidarity” or “allyship.” Non-Black women who seek the latter
must actually respect the origins, knowledge and experiences of Black
women, without co-opt (which causes de-contextualized generalizations
and erasure) and without reducing Black women to mere projections of
pain on which to build their own healing as persons while Black women
remain non-persons. Non-Black women do experience and resist against
misogyny itself; however, they can do this without harming Black women
and erasing our experiences.
I’ve found the term misogynoir and its articulation very relevant to my
life as a Black woman and it fits into existing Black women’s
experiences and womanist politics. I use the term as a Black woman in
several ways, as the same misogynoir that impacts pop culture (which
Moya Bailey originally coined and discussed) impacts culture itself and
histories/experiences for Black women.