Olivia: Here's a thought: What if the feminist movement, a force meant to empower all women, is actually leaving most of them behind? What if the issues we see trending—the ones about breaking glass ceilings—are a luxury, while the real feminist fight is about having a roof over your head at all? Jackson: That’s a heavy opener, Olivia. It’s provocative because it feels true and uncomfortable at the same time. It suggests the whole conversation might be happening in the wrong room, about the wrong things. Olivia: That's the explosive premise at the heart of Mikki Kendall's book, Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women That a Movement Forgot. Jackson: And this isn't just an academic take. Kendall writes from raw, personal experience—surviving an abusive marriage, raising a son in poverty. It's why the book has been so widely acclaimed and sparked so much debate; it’s grounded in a reality that a lot of mainstream feminism just doesn't see. Olivia: Exactly. She’s not theorizing from an ivory tower. She’s reporting from the front lines of survival. And that starts with her foundational critique of what she calls 'mainstream feminism,' which she argues has a massive, and dangerous, blind spot.

Jackson: Okay, so let's get right into it. What is that blind spot? When people hear 'mainstream feminism,' they might think of the Women's March or #MeToo. What is Kendall saying is missing? Olivia: She argues that mainstream feminism has become preoccupied with issues that primarily benefit women who are already privileged. It’s focused on helping women who are relatively safe and comfortable gain more power, more representation, more corner offices. Jackson: The 'lean in' philosophy. Olivia: Precisely. And Kendall’s point is, you can't 'lean in' if you can't even stand up. For millions of women, feminism isn't about getting a promotion; it's about finding your next meal, keeping your kids safe from gun violence, or having a place to live. These aren't 'side issues'; for marginalized women, they are the issues. Jackson: That’s a powerful claim. Can you give me a concrete example from the book of how this disconnect plays out? Olivia: Absolutely. The most powerful one is the story of her grandmother. Her grandmother never would have called herself a feminist. She was a Black woman born in 1924, raised in Jim Crow America. She worked her entire life, valued education above all else, and taught her daughters and granddaughters that survival and self-reliance were more important than 'respectability.' Jackson: Wow. So she was living a kind of practical feminism without the label. Olivia: Exactly. Kendall writes, "She taught me that being able to survive, to take care of myself and those I loved, was arguably more important than being concerned with respectability." While mainstream feminism of her time was often laden with racist and classist assumptions, her grandmother was focused on community health, on making sure everyone had what they needed to get by. Jackson: That's a powerful story, but some might say that's just being a strong person, not necessarily 'feminism.' How does Kendall connect that to a critique of the broader movement? Olivia: She connects it by showing how the movement often invalidates that kind of strength. It doesn't see it or value it. Kendall created the hashtag #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen because she saw that calls for feminist 'solidarity' often only appeared when a white woman's comfort was at stake. Meanwhile, the systemic issues plaguing women of color—like discrimination based on their names, their hair, or the adultification of young Black girls—were ignored by the same movement. Jackson: It’s the idea that some women’s problems are considered universal feminist issues, while other women’s problems are dismissed as niche, or worse, as just 'racial issues' or 'poverty issues.' Olivia: Yes. And Kendall’s argument is that you can't separate them. A feminism that ignores the lived realities of the most vulnerable isn't feminism at all; it's just a hobby for the privileged.

Jackson: Okay, so the movement is disconnected. But this is where it gets really challenging for some people. Kendall argues that things like hunger and gun violence are feminist issues. How does she make that case? Because on the surface, those seem like universal problems. Olivia: She makes the case by showing who is disproportionately affected. Let's take hunger. Kendall points out that women and children account for over 70 percent of the nation's poor. Single mothers, in particular, face staggering rates of food insecurity. She asks, how can we talk about women's empowerment when a huge number of women are worried about whether they can feed their children tonight? Jackson: Right, it's a question of priorities. It’s like trying to discuss the color of the lifeboats while the ship is actively sinking for a huge portion of the passengers. The priorities are just fundamentally different. Olivia: That’s a perfect analogy. And Kendall makes it even more visceral. She quotes, "Poverty can mean turning to everything from sex work to selling drugs in order to survive, because you can’t 'lean in' when you can’t earn a legal living wage and you still need to feed yourself and those who depend on you." It directly challenges that corporate feminist narrative. Jackson: It completely reframes it. What about gun violence? That's often framed as a political issue, not a gendered one. Olivia: Kendall argues it’s deeply gendered. She shares a terrifying personal story of being caught in a gunfight as a child. But she backs it up with stark data. The most chilling statistic is this: "The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed." Jackson: Five times. That’s staggering. Olivia: It is. And Black women experience the highest rates of gun homicide, often from an intimate partner. So for Kendall, ignoring gun violence is ignoring a direct threat to women's lives. It's a failure of the feminist movement to protect its own. She says feminism has to treat gun violence as a public health epidemic that it is, not just when it’s a mass shooting, but when it’s happening every day in marginalized communities. Jackson: So her argument is that if an issue disproportionately harms women, prevents their safety, and limits their autonomy, it is, by definition, a feminist issue. It doesn't matter if it also affects men. Olivia: Precisely. She’s expanding the battlefield. She’s saying the fight for women’s rights isn’t just in the boardroom or in Congress; it’s in the grocery aisle, the housing project, and on the street corner.

Jackson: This is all incredibly powerful, and honestly, a bit overwhelming. It feels like it demands a lot from people who thought they were already on the right side of things. Olivia: It does. And that leads to Kendall's final, and perhaps most demanding, point. It's not enough to just acknowledge this disconnect. She calls for a radical shift in how we offer support. Jackson: What does she mean by that? Olivia: She draws a sharp line between being an 'ally' and being an 'accomplice.' An ally, in her view, is often someone who supports from a safe distance. They might post a hashtag, read a book, and agree that things are bad. But their comfort is still their priority. When challenged, they can get defensive. Jackson: I think we’ve all seen that. The person who says, "But I'm one of the good ones!" Olivia: Exactly. Kendall uses the perfect example: the "I marched with Dr. King" defense. It’s using past actions as a shield to avoid present accountability. An accomplice, on the other hand, is different. An accomplice understands that their role is not to lead or to be centered, but to use their privilege to take on risk. They listen to what the marginalized community needs and then they do it, even if it's uncomfortable or costs them something. Jackson: This is a really important distinction. What does being an 'accomplice' actually look like in the real world? What's an example of an action an accomplice would take that an ally wouldn't? Olivia: An ally might post on social media about the injustice of voter suppression. An accomplice would use their day off to drive people in marginalized communities to the polls, or use their legal skills to fight gerrymandering, or publicly challenge a politician who supports voter ID laws, even if it makes them unpopular in their own circles. Jackson: So it's about action, not just attitude. Olivia: It’s about action and risk. Kendall says, "Accomplices do not just talk about bigotry; they do something about it." It means challenging your racist uncle at Thanksgiving. It means using your platform to amplify the voices of women of color, not to speak for them. It means understanding that your validation is not the goal. The goal is liberation. Jackson: It’s a call to move from performance to practice. Olivia: Yes. And to accept that anger from oppressed people is a valid, necessary response. Politeness, she argues, is often just a tool to control the conversation and maintain the status quo. An accomplice doesn't demand politeness; they ask, "What do you need me to do?"

Jackson: So, when you strip it all away, this book is a powerful argument that you can't build a movement for equality on a foundation of inequality. If feminism doesn't work for the most vulnerable, it doesn't really work for anyone. Olivia: That's the heart of it. Kendall's challenge is for us to ask: Is my feminism about my comfort, or is it about collective liberation? And being an accomplice means choosing liberation, even when it's uncomfortable. Jackson: It’s a tough but necessary question. It forces a real self-examination of one's own role in these systems, whether it's active or passive. Olivia: And it’s not about guilt. It’s about responsibility. The book ends with this idea that we are each other's harvest, each other's business, each other's magnitude and bond. It’s a call for a feminism that is truly for everyone, because as Kendall says, everyone needs it. Jackson: A powerful and essential message. We'd love to hear what you think. Join the conversation on our social channels and let us know what 'accomplice feminism' means to you. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.