Patriarchal binaries are used to oppress women and leave men unaccountable for their behavior. Such binaries exist so that on either side, men can claim that they are simply “reacting” to who women “are” versus taking accountability for their own behavior and for the fact that these binaries exist to oppress women in the first place. Binaries cannot account for the complexities and nuances in any woman’s personality or life.

For Black women, some of these binaries surface as: “(too) independent woman” vs. “gold digger, ” “strong” vs. “angry,” “queen” vs. “bitch/’females’,” and “supportive” vs. “bitter,” for example. The left sides of these are theoretically “positive” but upon further examination, it’s easy to see how they uphold rigid norms about “goodness” and “worth” and require Black women to behave in ways approved of by both Whites and Black men. The left sides cannot really exist without the right sides. Rigidity. The left sides are beholden to patriarchy just like the right sides are. The left sides also play into the politics of respectability, which is not womanism/Black feminism.

These binaries appear and reappear in many contexts. I alluded to another one of these binaries (when women are perceived as “pretty” vs. “not pretty”) in relation to street harassment in The Beauty Binary, Street Harassment and Rape Culture. In A Feminist Freak: What Sex and Politics Look Like, Black feminist Erica Brazelton (@TheNegress) explains moving beyond the rigidity of anti-sex feminism (which requires unhealthy sexual repression) vs. vehemently pro-sex feminism (which tends to privilege cis heterosexual White women’s sexuality and doesn’t account for intersectionality) into a space of nuance and intersectional thinking on sexuality.

However, these aren’t the only binaries that Black women face (in addition to already dealing with controlling images). Another one persists amidst White feminist discourse, especially in the mainstream: “the problem” vs. “the victim.” I was reminded of this when someone recently posted comments to my blog where they named Beyoncé as a source of oppression for women and then turned around in a second comment and called her a victim. They wanted a way to disregard Beyoncé and was hoping that I would agree with the latter if I didn’t accept the former. I reject such a binary altogether, however.

Now it is true that a person can be both an oppressor and oppressed. But this type of analysis is not what is occurring when many people–especially with White supremacist ideas of feminism–critique Black women like Beyoncé, Rihanna, Michelle Obama or everyday Black women who do or don’t identify as womanist or Black feminist. For those who propose these critiques with this “the problem” vs. “the victim” binary, a Black woman can only be anti-feminist, a victim that White feminists who are “the real feminists” can save or at best an “ally” to White women’s feminism. All of these stances reveal White supremacy.

When Black women (and often other women of colour as well) are consistently posited as a problem for feminism (usually applies to Black women or other women of colour in the West, though some are also posited as victims as well) or a victim for White feminists to save (almost always applies to Black women or other women of colour not in the West), White supremacy is the culprit. In either case, White women are positioned as the “ultimate” and “correct” feminists and other women are there to be saved by White women, there to be cheerleaders for White women, there to emulate White women or should get out of White women’s way. Other people who aren’t specifically White feminists can proliferate this thinking as well because they view gendered White supremacy and feminism as synonyms. They too can believe that Black women are only enemies of feminism or victims who need White feminism’s saving qualities.

Sometimes “the problem” side of the binary is further delineated into another binary where everything we say/do/write is deemed “unintelligent” vs. “too academic.” An example of this occurred recently with a White feminist Helen Lewis towards a feminist woman of colour Flavia Dzodan. This sub-binary that develops out of “the problem” side is about flexing power and silencing. I’ve faced this same situation several times, where a White feminist writes me off as stupid or questions my credentials/language as too complicated; either way she is suggesting that I am a problem. I am sure that you can imagine that I am always placed on “the problem” side of the binary. I’ve seen this happen to many Black women and some other women of colour.

The fact that Black women face such binaries outside of and inside progressive space is reason enough to critique White supremacy, racism and misogynoir anywhere they appear. To oppose oppression is to oppose it anywhere it appears, whether within “progressive” space or not. As Layli Phillips writes in The Womanist Reader, “womanists value everyday activism that involves confronting violence and oppression wherever and whenever they appear across the course of the day.” This idea that feminism itself should be off limits for critique, or worse, anyone who critiques it must solely want mainstream feminist acceptance is a lie meant to silence critique.

The constant marginalization that Black women face by being expected to consistently fit and perform one side of a binary to escape punishment (yet still be under patriarchal control), or perform the other side of a binary to their peril is oppression. The reality of these patriarchal binaries is that they are steeped in White supremacist notions of Black womanhood, no less. Thus, they are not that distant from “the problem” vs. “the victim” binary which is also shaped by White supremacy and prominent in mainstream feminism.

I reject rigid binaries shaping perspectives or behaviors as they pertain to Black women. It doesn’t matter if such binaries are proliferated by patriarchal Black or White men or feminist White women. If it is a proliferation of White supremacy, it is oppression.