Thomas: Hey everyone, welcome to the show. Today, we're diving deep into the feminist movement—specifically, who it might be leaving behind. Grace: Exactly. Maybe a question to kick us off that’ll hit home for some: when you think of feminism, whose voices actually come to mind? More importantly, who isn’t being heard? Thomas: That’s the question Mikki Kendall really grapples with in her book, Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women That a Movement Forgot. It’s a powerful critique of how mainstream feminism often overlooks the most vulnerable women—women of color, women in poverty, queer women—while focusing on, shall we say, more palatable, privileged issues. Grace: Right, Kendall doesn’t pull any punches. She argues that feminism can't truly work if it ignores those systemic barriers, like poverty, unstable housing, gun violence, issues that disproportionately impact marginalized women. Her core message? Feminism has to prioritize survival first, not just empowerment buzzwords. Thomas: So, today, we're unpacking all of this through three key angles. First, we'll look at how mainstream feminism became so exclusionary in the first place—its roots in privilege, and those blind spots that come with it. Grace: Then, we'll examine the real, structural obstacles that marginalized women face on a daily basis. We're talking racism, sexism, and classism all colliding at once. A real trifecta of oppression. Thomas: And lastly, we'll tackle the cultural narratives that keep these systems going—those harmful stereotypes and rigid gender norms that unfairly weigh down women of color. Grace: It’s like peeling back an onion, isn’t it? It might sting a bit, sure—but only by digging deeper can we actually see what's “really” going on.

Thomas: So, let’s dive into the core of Kendall’s argument, shall we? It’s all about how mainstream feminism tends to exclude. She says it's been primarily tailored to the needs of, you know, affluent, white, middle-class women. That’s why you see so much focus on things like boardroom representation or equal pay in high-level jobs, but the bigger picture gets lost. Grace: So, it's like feminism has its own VIP section, right? Where your struggles only matter if they're, let’s say, palatable enough—climbing the corporate ladder or shattering glass ceilings, that sort of thing? Thomas: Precisely. And Kendall uses her grandmother's story to illustrate this point. Her grandmother was a woman of color who worked incredibly hard to support her family but never really identified with feminism because, well, it just didn’t seem relevant to her life. For women like her, and for so many in marginalized communities, feminism felt disconnected from their everyday lives. Grace: Right, because when you're worried about putting food on the table, it's hard to get excited about hashtags like #LeanIn, isn't it? Those kinds of campaigns don't really address the structural inequalities in your neighborhood, like underfunded schools or lack of access to healthy food. Thomas: Exactly. Kendall really emphasizes how these struggles—poverty, systemic racism, even gun violence—were, and often still are, considered "not feminist issues." But here's the “really” frustrating part: advocating for workplace equality is considered feminist, yet demanding livable wages and affordable childcare for the women who clean those workplaces isn’t. It’s a huge oversight. Grace: So it's almost like mainstream feminism picks and chooses issues that feel "safe" or, I don't know, aspirational—like something off a mood board. Meanwhile, issues like systemic poverty or gun violence are seen as too messy or political, not “really” fitting into the feminist narrative. Thomas: Exactly, and that’s what makes Kendall's message so vital. She doesn't pull any punches, she's basically calling the movement out for its silence. Women of color, poor women, queer women—they've been carrying the weight of systemic oppression on multiple fronts, and mainstream feminism has largely ignored it. Grace: That’s where intersectionality comes into play, right? Kendall draws on Kimberlé Crenshaw’s framework to explain how overlapping identities—being Black and female, for example—create unique forms of oppression. Thomas: Absolutely. Intersectionality challenges this idea that there’s a one-size-fits-all feminist struggle. It insists that feminism must consider how racism, sexism, classism, and other biases intersect to create complex challenges. Without that, feminism risks excluding the very women it claims to be empowering. Grace: Let me throw a little skepticism in here, though. Some might argue that "feminism" inherently centers on women's issues. So, adding in systemic poverty, gun violence, or housing issues—are we stretching it a bit? Are we asking too much of feminism? Shouldn’t those be separate battles? Thomas: But can you “really” separate them, though? Kendall would argue that no, you “really” can’t. The lives of marginalized women exist right at these intersections, where the fight for survival involves battling multiple oppressive systems. Take poverty, for instance. Black women face disproportionate economic instability because racism and sexism work together to make jobs harder to get, pay less equitable, and upward mobility? Well, it feels like a distant dream. Grace: Right. And it's not just about the poverty itself, it’s the knock-on effects it has, like underfunded schools perpetuating the cycle for future generations. Thomas: Exactly. And yet, mainstream feminism often avoids these larger systemic causes, focusing instead on individual empowerment stories—like Sheryl Sandberg telling women to "lean in"—without acknowledging that many women can't even get close to the table, let alone lean into it, because of structural barriers. Grace: It’s like advocating for better chairs at the table while ignoring that some people are stuck in the basement without a ladder. And even if they get to the table, they're served scraps. Thomas: That’s a great analogy! And it’s not just about economic disparities either. Kendall uses issues of survival, like gun violence, to highlight this disconnect too. Did you know Black women face the highest rates of firearm-related homicides compared to any other group of women? Grace: And yet, these mainstream feminist circles rarely prioritize gun violence in their advocacy. It’s treated as… what? A "community problem" rather than a feminist one? Thomas: Exactly. Kendall argues that safety—whether it’s from gun violence, domestic violence, or systemic neglect—is fundamental to a woman's ability to thrive. You can’t focus on empowerment when you’re living in fear for your life every day. Grace: Which brings us to one of Kendall's most powerful examples: Serena Williams. She's wealthy, globally recognized, accomplished beyond measure—and even she almost died during childbirth because medical professionals dismissed her health concerns. If systemic racism can endanger Serena Williams, what does that say for Black women without her resources? Thomas: Exactly. That’s the core of Kendall's message, right? Oppression doesn’t magically disappear with fame or money, because it's systemic. And when Serena Williams had to fight just to be heard, it just highlights how much harder the fight is for Black women without that kind of platform. Intersectional feminism insists on acknowledging these realities and centering voices like hers. Grace: It feels like such a clear call to action. Feminists can’t just paste intersectionality onto their existing discussions; it has to be the very foundation, the lens through which they view everything. Thomas: Absolutely, Kendall’s calling for a complete paradigm shift. Feminism can’t afford to be just for show or only focusing on certain issues. To “really” matter, it has to embrace the complexities of intersectionality and respond to the needs of marginalized women with real action, not just words.

Thomas: This critique naturally leads us to examine how systemic issues disproportionately affect marginalized women. Kendall, “really” building on that intersectional framework, dives into the practical ways systemic oppression shows up. She highlights how deeply interconnected these issues are and why addressing them absolutely requires holistic solutions. Grace: And when we say “issues,” we're talking actual, you know, survival. Kendall's point isn't just that, say, housing insecurity or gun violence matter. She's saying they are feminist issues, right? Like, at the core of what feminism should stand for. And yet, they've been largely ignored or, at best, sidelined. Let's maybe start with gun violence, since Kendall puts such a sharp lens on it as such an immediate crisis. Thomas: Definitely. Kendall frames gun violence as a pressing public health issue, but what makes her argument so compelling is how she unpacks the racialized and gendered nuances. Black women, for instance, face significantly higher rates of firearm-related homicides—tragically so—compared to any other group of women in the U.S. Grace: But it's not just the trauma of the act itself, right? Kendall “really” pushes us to see the bigger picture: how the system itself enables this violence. Poverty, underfunded communities, inadequate law enforcement... all of these factors contribute to putting marginalized women, Black women especially, in harm's way. Thomas: Exactly. And Kendall emphasizes the intersectionality at play, too. For example, with intimate partner violence, Black women are at a heightened risk. When you combine abusive dynamics with easy access to firearms, it's so often fatal. But instead of actually addressing this reality, law enforcement... well, they frequently fail to protect them. Kendall mentions cases where severe violence was mislabeled as "mutual assault," completely erasing the power dynamics and leaving women defenseless. Grace: I mean, how does anyone even begin to trust a system that reclassifies your life-and-death situation as just a… squabble? And we’re not even getting into the psychological scars that come with living under that kind of constant, persistent danger, are we? Thomas: No, and Kendall “really” makes sure to shine a light on that. She talks about growing up in a neighborhood where gunfire wasn't the exception, but the norm. Imagine being taught as a young girl to fear not just gunshots, but the signs that shots might happen next – like a car slowing down, or the wrong person walking up your block. That's trauma being baked into everyday life, and yet, mainstream feminist rhetoric rarely gives it the importance it deserves. Grace: It's such a stark contrast when you think about it. On the one hand, you've got headlines celebrating female CEOs, or historic firsts in politics. And on the other, you've got women scared to walk to the corner store, getting, like, zero recognition of their struggles in feminist discourse. Thomas: And it doesn't just stop there. Kendall connects this to another critical issue that survival feminism “really” pushes to the forefront – food insecurity. For so many women, particularly single mothers in low-income communities, feeding a family is a daily, uphill battle. Grace: Which brings us to the concept of "food deserts." Kendall doesn't just say they exist. she also “really” explains their roots. You know, whole neighborhoods have been left without access to affordable, nutritious food because, historically, businesses and governments disinvested in those areas. What's left are dollar store chains and fast-food joints, right? Nutrition deserts, essentially. Thomas: She also highlights how these systemic failings lead to generational consequences, everything from poor health to financial instability. Women in these areas, they're forced to make these impossible choices every day: Do I scrape together what little money I have for processed food that fills you up but doesn’t “really” nourish, or do I go hungry and save for rent? Grace: And let's not forget the stigma that's tied to food assistance programs like SNAP. Kendall points out how society shames women for needing help without even acknowledging the structural reasons why they even need that help in the first place. Thomas: Exactly. And SNAP isn't even enough to comprehensively address the problem, because hunger ties back to broader systemic challenges -- things like underemployment, inaccessible childcare, and unstable housing all coming together to reinforce that cycle of poverty. And that's why Kendall calls for more than just piecemeal solutions; she insists on community-based interventions and, of course, systemic reform. Grace: Let's talk housing next, because gentrification, another one of Kendall's survival-level issues, is maybe the most visible example of systemic inequality today. It's heartbreaking how this plays out: Wealthier people move into historically low-income areas, property values skyrocket, and the existing community is effectively pushed out. Thomas: And it's not just about losing roofs over their heads, it severs entire support systems. Families have to uproot, kids' education gets disrupted, and essential local businesses go under, replaced by high-end coffee shops or boutiques. Grace: Kendall's description of matriarchal figures – grandmothers, single moms, fighting to hold extended families together, despite relentless financial and emotional strain… it “really” gets to the heart of why housing isn't just a feminist issue, but a deeply human one. Displacing them isn't just about losing homes. It's about shredding the cultural and emotional fabric of a community. Thomas: That's the “real” cost of gentrification. It's not just a few people having to move, it's entire neighborhoods being hollowed out to make room for wealthier, often whiter, residents. And the irony is, these wealthier newcomers, they often tout progressive values, but their actions are perpetuating inequality. Grace: Which brings us back to Kendall's broader message, right? You can't fix one of these problems in isolation. Gun violence, food deserts, housing insecurity – they're all tied together by the same structural neglect. So, tackling just one of them without addressing the root causes is like patching up a sinking ship with duct tape. Thomas: And Kendall is relentless in saying this isn't just a failure of policy, it's a failure of prioritization. Feminism has to stop treating these issues like footnotes or side concerns. Survival is foundational. Without it, empowerment is kind of meaningless, right? Grace: She's laying down a serious challenge here – both for the feminist movement and for anyone claiming to care about equity. It's not enough to just acknowledge that these issues exist. What are we actually doing about them?

Thomas: So, understanding these systemic barriers really sets the stage for diving into how cultural perceptions and media narratives further marginalize women of color. This is where Kendall's critique gets even sharper, right? How beauty standards, colorism, and harmful media portrayals reinforce stereotypes that perpetuate inequality, that's what we're talking about. Grace: Exactly, the cultural side of things. Because, let's be real, even if we somehow magically erased all the systemic barriers, these narratives—the ones that shape how society sees and values marginalized women—they'd still be playing a huge role. So, where does Kendall start with all this? How does she unpack it? Thomas: She starts with beauty standards, specifically their Eurocentric focus. Which, you know, pretty much automatically excludes so many women of color. We're talking lighter skin, straight hair—these supposedly ideal features have shaped not just what we see as attractive, but, critically, ideas about worth and capability. And she backs it all up with examples, pretty hard to ignore them. Grace: Okay, give me an example. Because beauty standards can feel a little abstract unless you really ground them in the real world. Thomas: Exactly. She brings up that phrase so many Black women have heard, "You're pretty for a Black girl." On the surface, it sounds like a compliment, right? But it's rooted in this idea that Black beauty is somehow an anomaly. As if Black women aren't already inherently beautiful by societal standards. Grace: Right, it's that backhanded compliment thing again. Like, "You're different, somehow you managed to rise above what we think about people who look like you." It's not flattery, it’s actually reinforcing those white-centered norms. Thomas: Exactly. And this applies not just to individuals, but to so-called 'inclusive' cultural representations. Like Disney's The Princess and the Frog. Groundbreaking, right? First Black Disney princess! But Kendall points out how Tiana's features were softened, made more Eurocentric, probably to appeal to a broader audience. Grace: So even inclusion comes with conditions. She's let into the Disney club, but only after being filtered to fit the dominant preferences. Which defeats the whole purpose – shouldn’t we create a character that reflects the beauty of diverse Blackness? Thomas: Right! And that's the problem. These attempts at representation can feel like compromises. And when that representation isn't authentic, it doesn't challenge the ways society actually marginalizes women of color. It deepens the divide, and signals that proximity to whiteness equals value. Grace: It's like the media thinks inclusion is just about hitting quotas, but not about changing the story. And we can't forget the systemic consequences Kendall highlights. Lighter-skinned people—seen as closer to whiteness—get better job opportunities, higher salaries, even more favorable treatment in court. It's a tangible reward for adhering to these Eurocentric beauty standards. Thomas: Yes. That's where colorism comes in. It's a form of internal discrimination within communities of color. It's not just white systems imposing harm, it's how these standards play out within marginalized groups themselves. Grace: So, a hierarchy of skin tone that mirrors broader racial hierarchies. But she doesn't just point it out, what specifically does she say about how it gets reinforced? Thomas: Well, media plays a huge role. Lighter-skinned actresses and models dominate roles that are supposed to celebrate diversity. So diversity becomes superficial. It's the appearance of inclusivity, without actual equity for darker-skinned women. And Kendall emphasizes that this erasure damages mental health. Young girls grow up without seeing anyone who looks like them represented, or worse, overtly told that their features are less valuable - self-esteem plummets. Grace: And on the flip side, the limited representation darker-skinned Black women do get is often loaded with stereotypes. The "angry Black woman," for example, or the Sapphire archetype. She tears those tropes to shreds, explaining how they reduce human beings to damaging caricatures. Thomas: Exactly. Kendall talks about how the Sapphire trope specifically—the aggressive, domineering, angry Black Woman—leads to real-world consequences. If a Black woman is assertive at work, she's seen as hostile, regardless of whether she's right or not. Grace: Right, any justified critique gets twisted into 'irrational hostility'. And once that stereotype sticks, it's used to discredit them. Thomas: And as Kendall shows, these caricatures actually fuel systemic outcomes. From fewer job opportunities to harsher sentencing in the justice system, these biases have real-world consequences. That's why Kendall emphasizes that this harmful narratives must change. Grace: Okay, but how do we actually do that? How do you break down these entrenched media stereotypes? Sounds like climbing Mount Everest. Thomas: Kendall says authentic representation is the solution. That's more diversity not just in characters on screen, but in the writer's rooms, studios, where decisions are made. We can dismantle these harmful tropes when women of color are telling their own stories. Grace: So it's not just better representation in media, but making sure the people shaping the content come from those represented communities. Thomas: Yes. And Kendall also points out how grassroots efforts and social media empower women of color to reclaim narratives. Platforms like Instagram and Twitter democratize who gets to tell stories and push back against outdated stereotypes. Movements like #BlackGirlMagic celebrate the beauty and complexity of Black womanhood without validation from traditional media. Grace: It's a great shift, but also a reminder of how far we still have to go. Because these grassroots efforts are often necessary because mainstream media is still not doing the work. Thomas: Totally. Kendall argues that if we don't disrupt these narratives, they'll continue justifying the policies and practices that harm marginalized communities. Things like wage gaps, unequal healthcare, and underrepresentation in leadership. Grace: So it's not just, like, fixing the surface-level stuff. To Kendall, representation isn't some accessory to change, it's the entry point. By reshaping how marginalized women are seen, society can actually start tackling the deeper inequities. Thomas: Precisely. And Kendall doesn't let anyone off the hook. She says this isn't just a women-of-color issue, but a societal one. Everyone has a responsibility to dismantle these stories if we're serious about equity. Grace: So it's accountability at every level. From media consumers to policymakers, Kendall's not interested in half-measures. Thomas: Exactly. Authentic representation is foundational, not optional. Without it, feminism—and society at large—can't move forward.

Thomas: Okay, so to sum up Mikki Kendall's “Hood Feminism”, it's really a call to rethink what feminism focuses on and who it's actually helping. She points out—pretty strongly, I think—that mainstream feminism, you know, the kind that's all about empowerment from a place of privilege, has kind of missed the mark for women on the margins. It hasn't really dealt with the big systemic problems impacting their everyday lives—things like poverty, gun violence, not having stable housing, and even access to healthy food. Grace: Exactly. It’s not just a critique, is it? It's a demand for actual change. Kendall “really” highlights how intersectionality isn't just some trendy word, but a real framework for understanding how different parts of our identities combine to create “really” specific struggles. If we don't tackle these different layers of oppression, feminism might just end up being a superficial thing. Thomas: Absolutely. And her take on cultural narratives and the way the media portrays things adds another dimension. She shows how stereotypes not only shape how people see things, but they actively keep inequality going. Kendall's firm on having authentic representation—at every level—as a crucial step in breaking down these systems. Grace: The core message seems pretty clear: feminism needs to be more inclusive, more practical, and see the bigger picture. Talking about empowerment is great, but it’s not enough if you’re not also talking about basic survival. Thomas: Exactly! So, the question we want to leave everyone with is: How can we, individually, help the feminist movement focus on the voices of those who are most impacted by these systemic issues? Acknowledging the problem is the first step, of course, but it definitely doesn't end there. Grace: Right. Let's try to move past just using hashtags and reacting to headlines. Support organizations that are addressing these “really” critical survival issues, push for inclusive policies, challenge the stereotypes we see in the media—and, yeah, demand more from feminism in general. It’s not enough to just listen; we need to actually do something. Thomas: Because, as Mikki Kendall reminds us, survival isn't just related to feminism—it’s absolutely fundamental to it.