by bell hooks
Movies and radio shows of the 1930’s and 1940’s invariably pedaled the Sapphire image of the black woman: she is depicted as iron-willed, effectual, treacherous toward and contemptible of black men, the latter being portrayed as simpering, ineffectual whipping boys. Certainly, most of us have encountered domineering Black females (and white ones too). Many of them have been unlucky in life and love and seek a bitter haven from their disappointments in fanatical self-sufficiency.
The Sapphire image was popularized by the radio and television show Amos ‘n’ Andy, in which Sapphire is the nagging, shrewish wife of Kingfish. As the title indicates, the show focused on the black male characters. Sapphire’s shrewish personality was used primarily to create sympathy in viewers
for the black male lot. The Sapphire identity has been projected onto any black woman who overtly expresses bitterness, anger, and rage about her lot. Consequently, many black women repress these feelings for fear of being regarded as shrewish Sapphires. Or they embrace the Sapphire identity as a reaction to the harsh treatment of black women in society. The “evilness” of a given black woman may merely be the facade she presents to a sexist-racist world that she realizes would only exploit her if she were to appear vulnerable.
All the myths and stereotypes used to characterize black womanhood have their roots in negative anti-woman mythology. Yet they form the basis of most critical inquiry into the nature of black female experience. Many people have difficulty appreciating black women as we are because of eagerness to impose an identity upon us based on any number of negative stereotypes. Widespread efforts to continue devaluation of black womanhood make it extremely difficult and oftentimes impossible for the black female to develop a positive self-concept. For we are daily bombarded by negative images. Indeed, one strong oppressive force has been this negative stereotype and our acceptance of it as a viable role model upon which we can pattern our lives.
The Imperialism of Patriarchy
When the contemporary movement toward feminism began, there was little discussion of the impact of sexism on the social status of black women. The upper and middle class white women who were at the forefront of the movement made no effort to emphasize that patriarchal power, the power men use to dominate women, is not just the privilege of upper and middle class white men, but the privilege of all men in our society regardless of their class or race. White feminists so focused on the disparity between white male/white female economic status as an indication of the negative impact of sexism that they drew no attention to the fact that poor and lower-class men are as able to oppress and brutalize women as any other group of men in American society. The feminist tendency to make synonymous male possession of economic power with being an oppressor caused white men to be labeled “the” enemy. The labeling of the white male patriarch as “chauvinist pig” provided a convenient scapegoat for black male sexists. They could join with white and black women to protest against white male oppression and divert attention away from their sexism, their support of patriarchy, and their sexist exploitation of women. Black leaders, male and female, have been unwilling to acknowledge black male sexist oppression of black women because they do not want to acknowledge that racism is not the only oppressive force in
our lives. Nor do they wish to complicate efforts to resist racism by acknowledging that black men can be victimized by racism but at the same time act as sexist oppressors of black women. Consequently there is little acknowledgement of sexist oppression in black male/female relationships as a serious problem. Exaggerated emphasis on the impact of racism on black men has evoked an image of the black male as effete, emasculated, crippled. And so intensely does this image dominate American thinking that people are absolutely unwilling to admit that the damaging effects of racism on black men neither prevents them from being sexist oppressors nor excuses or justifies their sexist oppression of black women.
Black male sexism existed long before American slavery. The sexist politics of white-ruled and colonized America merely reinforced in the minds of enslaved black people existing beliefs that men were the superiors of women. In an earlier discussion of the slave sub-culture I noted that the patriarchal social structure gave the enslaved male higher status than the enslaved female. Historiographers have not been willing to acknowledge either the higher status of the enslaved male in the black sub-culture or the fact that sex-based differentiation of work roles as assigned by white masters reflected a bias towards the male (i.e., black women required to perform “male” tasks but black men not required to perform “female” tasks—women labor in fields but men do no childcare). In modern times, the emphasis on the sexist definition of the male role as that of protector and provider has caused scholars to argue that the most damaging impact of slavery on black people was that it did not allow black men to assume the traditional male role. But the inability of black men to assume the role of protector and provider did not change the reality that men in patriarchal society automatically have higher status than women—they are not obliged to earn that status. Consequently, the enslaved black male, though obviously deprived of the
social status that would enable him to protect and provide for himself and others, had a higher status than the black female slave based solely on his being male. This higher status did not always lead to preferential treatment but it was overtly acknowledged by sex-role differentiation.
Sexist discrimination against all women in the labor force and in higher educational spheres throughout 19th century America meant that of those black people who aspired to leadership roles, either during slavery or at manumission, black men were the more likely candidates. As black men dominated leadership roles, they shaped the early black liberation movement so that it reflected a patriarchal bias. Courageous black women leaders like Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman did not represent the norm; they were exceptional individuals who dared to challenge the male vanguard to struggle for freedom. At public appearances, rallies, luncheons, and dinners black male leaders spoke in support of patriarchal rule. They did not talk directly about discriminating against women. Their sexism was shrouded in romantic visions of black men lifting black women to pedestals. Outspoken black nationalist leader Martin Delaney in his political treatise, The Condition, Elevation, Emigration, and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States, which was first published in 1852, advocated distinct sex role patterns for black women and men:
Let our young men and women prepare themselves for usefulness and business; that the men may enter into merchandise, trading, and other things of importance; the young women may become teachers of various kinds, and otherwise fill places of usefulness....
Our females must be qualified, because they are to be the mothers of our children. As mothers are the first nurse and instructors of children; from them children consequently, get their first impression, which being always the most lasting, should be the more correct. Raise the mothers above the level of degradation, and the offspring is elevated with them. In a word, instead of our young men, transcribing in their blank books recipes for Cooking, we desire to see them making the transfer of Invoices and Merchandise.
Frederick Douglass saw the entire racial dilemma in America as
a struggle between white men and black men. In 1865 he published an essay titled “What the Black Man Wants” which argued in favor of black men gaining the vote while women remained disenfranchised:
Shall we at this moment justify the deprivation of the Negro of the right to vote, because some one else is deprived of that privilege? I hold that women, as well as men, have the right to vote, and my heart and my voice go with the movement to extend suffrage to women; but the question rests on another basis than that on which our rights rest. We may be asked, I say, why we want it. I will tell you why we want it. We want it because it is our right, first of all. No class of men can, without insulting their own nature, be content with any deprivation of their rights.
It is evident in this statement that to Douglass the “neg
ro” was synonymous with the black male. And though he claims in his essay to support woman suffrage, he clearly believed it was more appropriate and fitting that men be given the right to vote. By emphasizing that the right to vote was more important to men than women, Douglass and other black male activists allied themselves with white male patriarchs on the basis of shared sexism.
In their private lives, black male activists and political leaders demanded that their wives assume subordinate roles. Black woman feminist Mary Church Terrell recorded in her diary that her activist lawyer husband desired her to play no role in political affairs. She complained that he treated her as if she were a fragile glass object in need of constant protection. Terrell’s husband used his patriarchal status to sabotage her political work. His fear was that her femininity would be “tarnished” by too many encounters with the world outside the home. The marriage of Booker T. Washington and his third wife, Margaret Murray, was fraught with similar conflict. Margaret wanted to assume a more active role in the black political movement but was encouraged to confine herself to the domestic sphere. While Ida B. Wells’ husband supported her political work, she did not abdicate responsibility for child care and on various occasions appeared at speaking engagements with her small children. In 1894 Calvin Chase wrote an editorial in the Bee entitled “Our Women” in which he urged black men to assume the role of protector of black womanhood. Chase admonished, “Let us do our duty in defending our women; let us set up a system of reformation not only of our women but everything that pertains to the race’s advancement.” Nineteenth century black male leaders like James Forten,
Charles Remond, Martin Delaney, and Frederick Douglass supported the efforts of women to gain political rights but they did not support social equality between the sexes. They were in fact adamant in their support of patriarchal rule. Like white male liberals in the 19th century, black male leaders were not against granting women access to political rights as long as men remained the acknowledged superior authorities. In a discussion of southern etiquette as regards attitudes toward women, one white writer noted, “Southern racists and black activists looked at women in similar terms. Both viewed the female as a second sex with distinctly limited privileges.”
Among the 19th century black masses, folks were wholeheartedly committed to establishing and maintaining a patriarchal social order in their segregated culture. Black women wanted to assume the “feminine” role of homemaker supported, protected, and honored by a loving husband. There was one problem—few jobs available to black men. Racist whites refused black men employment, while black women were able to find domestic service jobs. White and black people have interpreted white employment of black women in domestic service jobs while refusing to provide jobs for black men as an indication that they favored black women over black men. Such thinking ignores the obvious fact that domestic service jobs (maids, housekeepers, washerwomen) were not regarded as either “real” work or meaningful labor. White people did not perceive black women engaged in service jobs as performing significant work that deserved adequate economic reward. They saw domestic service jobs performed by black women as being merely an extension of the “natural” female role and considered such jobs valueless. While white men could feel threatened by competition from black males for sound wage-earning jobs and use racism to exclude black men, white women were eager to surrender household chores to black female servants. Since household chores were seen as degrading work, it is unlikely that white people were showing favoritism to black women by allowing them these jobs. It is more likely that they thought black women, whom they believed were without dignity and self-respect, would feel no shame in doing menial labor.
Although many black women worked outside the home, they remained staunch supporters of patriarchy. They regarded the black male who could not free them from the labor force with hostility, anger, and contempt. Even in some homes where black men worked but did not earn enough money to be the sole provider, black wives were bitter about having to enter the work force. Much of the tension in black marriages and other male-female relationships was caused by black females’ pressuring men to assume the breadwinner, head-of-the-household role. Often black men were not as upwardly mobile as black women wanted them to be. As women in capitalist America are the major consumers, much of the pressure on all men to earn more money is imposed upon them by women. And black women have been no exception. Unlike many white men who responded to the materialistic demands of wives by becoming devoted disciples of the cult of work, many black men reacted with hostility to such demands. Other black men worked two or three jobs to provide for the materialistic demands of wife and children.
In 1970, L.J. Axelson published an essay, “The Working Wife: Difference in Perception Among Negro and White Males,” which introduced data that showed black men were
much more supportive and accepting of their wives being in the work force than white men. Often it has been black women who have been the most angered and enraged about black men not assuming the provider role. The 1968 issue of the Liberator published an essay by black woman writer Gail Stokes titled “Black Woman to Black Man.” In the essay she expressed hostility and contempt for those black men who were reluctant to assume the provider role:
Of course you will say, “How can I love you and want to be with you when I come home and you’re looking like a slob? Why, white women never open the door for their husbands the way you black bitches do.”
I should guess not, you ignorant man. Why should they be in such a state when they’ve got maids like me to do everything for them? There is no screaming at the kids for her, no standing over the hot stove; everything is done for her, and whether her man loves her or not, he provides... provides... do you hear that, nigger? PROVIDES!
The rage of working black women, who have equated manhood with the ability of men to be sole economic providers in the family, and who consequently feel cheated and betrayed by black men who refuse to assume these roles, is but another indication of the extent of their acceptance and support of patriarchy. They saw the black male who did not eagerly assume the breadwinner role as selfish, lazy, and irresponsible, or in white male sociological terms, “emasculated.” Their perception of the black male as weak or effeminate is not an indication that they have repudiated male dominance; it is an acknowledgement on their part that they wholeheartedly embrace patriarchy and feel contemptuous toward black men who have no desire to assume the breadwinner role.
The idea that black men felt emasculated because black women worked outside the home is based on the assumption that men find their identity through work and are personally fulfilled by acting as breadwinners. Such an assumption does not reveal any consideration of the fact that the vast majority of jobs men perform are time-consuming, uninteresting, and energy-draining—and are not the least bit personally fulfilling. Myron Brenton, author of The A merican Male—A Penetrating Look at the Masculinity Crisis, argues that men do not feel that work allows them to assert “masculine power.” While he admits that most American men are socialized by sexism to regard work as their role, he argues that the men who accept the idea that work is an expression of their masculine power and should be the most important aspect of their life experience are usually disappointed. He comments, “The American male looks to his breadwinner role to confirm his manliness, but work itself is fraught with de-humanizing—i.e., unmanning— influence.” Black men in America have rarely romanticized labor, largely because they have for the most part performed less desirable tasks. They knew that performing jobs society
deemed menial with bosses and supervisors harassing and persecuting them was not fulfilling. They also knew that the monetary rewards for their labor rarely compensated for the indignities they were forced to endure. Ambitious black men who absorbed the values of middle class white patriarchs have been most eager to accept the emasculation theory, as they are the men who feel most crippled by the racial hierarchy in American society that has traditionally denied bl
ack men unlimited access to power. It is common to hear famous black male celebrities or other financially successful black men lament the “powerlessness of the black male” or stress that he is unable to be a “real” man in American society. They choose to ignore the reality that their own successes are an indication that black men are not totally trapped, crippled, or emasculated. In actuality, what they are really saying is that they have embraced patriarchy and with it male competitiveness, and that as long as white men dominate capitalist power structures in American society, black men will feel emasculated.
Many black men who express the greatest hostility toward the white male power structure are often eager to gain access to that power. Their expressions of rage and anger are less a critique of the white male patriarchal social order and more a reaction against the fact that they have not been allowed full participation in the power game. In the past, these black men have been most supportive of male subjugation of women. They hoped to gain public recognition of their “manhood” by demonstrating that they were the dominant figure in the black family.
Just as 19th century black male leaders felt that it was important that all black men show themselves willing to be protectors and providers of their women as a sign to the white race that they would tolerate no more denial of their masculine privilege, 20th century black male leaders used this same tactic. Marcus Garvey, Elijah Muhammed, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael, Amiri Baraka and other black male leaders have righteously supported patriarchy. They have all argued that it is absolutely necessary for black men to relegate black women to a subordinate position both in the political sphere and in home life. Amiri Baraka published an essay in the July 1970 issue of Black World that publicly announced his commitment to establishing a black patriarchy. Yet he did not use terms like patriarchy or male rule; instead he discussed the formation of a black male-dominated household with its inherent anti-woman stance as if it were a positive reaction against white racist values. His romantic rhetoric was typical of the language black male leaders used to mask the negative implication of their sexist message. Addressing himself to all black people, Baraka asserts: