Female Black Panther Party, Sexism in the Group?
NB COMMENTARY: I really wanted to NOT be in this Beyoncé Madness, but the irony of it all is to see folks being offended by her antics to the point of calling it racist when in fact, if they took the time to read the lyrics, they would see the song is all about Beyoncé getting hers. With a smattering of some retorts against "whatever." The fact that she even uses this "so-called" Black Panther imagery, which in and of itself is a smack in the face of the movement, a downgrade at best in its presentation and surely not militant at all; is amazing to me. The fact that folks are getting hot under the collar over it is outright laughable. Then, on the other hand, you have these drones who support and even consider this "show" as something meaningful or even intrinsically an acknowledgment of her "Blackness." Now I am ROFLMAO and sadly, there are many in that camp as well.
In it's simplicity
 it barely shows any aggression or hatred or anything against the police. It's
 a bunch of scantly clad women, fist balled up, dancing with Beyoncé in
 formation. The directive?? Work hard, grind hard, own it so you can "have
 the paper." Which none of that was what the BPP Movement was about but
 surely a capitalistic approach to success. 
These folks give
 money to these movements (Black Lives Matter which is suspect on its face), and bail protesters out of jail, but none of them
 will give up their way of life to join the Movement on the Real, and that's
 the point. If twirling her ass, and rocking her crotch gets her money, that is
 what she will do, she certainly is not on the front lines of the conscious
 movement or on the front lines of the progressive movement. 
Being part of the conscious or progressive movement would be
 detrimental to her power bank account cause folks would stop spending money on
 those things that do nothing for their progress and that would mean to stop buying her
 and her husbands stuff. Her lyrics were more about, "this is what you get for
 your money, I work hard for it, I slay for it, and see, what your money did
 for me??? I am at the Super Bowl."
It's all about her
 and will always be about her, and folks need to get real cause she ain't doing
 nothing against her handlers who are all "albinos." LOL Check out
 the lyrics if you haven't already. Click
 Here for the Lyrics
SOURCE: http://blackpantheressproject.tumblr.com/
Although
 the Black Panther Party (BPP) revolutionized the condition of Black people and
 communities in the 1960s, sexism in the group silenced the voices of Black
 women to promote a Black nationalist agenda that became conflated with the
 idea of preserving Black masculinity. This project aims to examine how and why
 this brand of racialized sexism in the Black Panther Party operated in the
 group, and to shed light on some of the silenced and erased the narratives
 about radical Black womanhood.
Regina
 Jennings, a Black woman who joined the Black Panther Party as a teenager,
 reflects about her experience with sexism in the group. She recounts a
 particularly difficult encounter with a captain who romantically pursued her.
 When she rejected his advances, she explains, “he made my life miserable. He
 gave me ridiculous orders. He shunned me. He found fault in my performance”
 (262). Ultimately, he had her transferred to a different branch of the
 organization, even though that meant completely disrupting her way of life.
 Jennings brought the incidences to the Central Committee’s attention, but the
 all-male panel accused her of white, bourgeois behaviors and values. 
In
 spite of this situation, Jennings takes great pains not to demonize the entire
 group. While she and other women in the Black Panther Party confronted this
 form of sexism and misogyny, they also received a lot of support from Black
 men. Some Black men even defended Jennings when she complained of the sexual
 harassment, even when that meant that other men would shame them or call them
 emasculated. Jennings attributes these circumstances with a lack of knowledge
 or experience with power. “Black men, who had been too long without some form
 of power, lacked the background to understand and rework their double standard
 toward the female cadre” (263), she contends, demonstrating that oppression
 not only works to degrade a group, but also impels that group to internalize a
 set of power structures and enact oppression upon others. In spite of her
 claims, she emphasizes that this type of sexism should not be excused but
 rather understood. Jennings celebrates the love present in the BPP, forgiving
 the Party for the conditions that made it imperfect while honoring the uplift
 it achieved.
“I want you to know how much they perfectly loved you,” she clarifies in reference to those who dedicated their energies to Black communities. “I want you to know that they were willing to die for you” (264).
December
 18, 2013
Kathleen Cleaver on Black Natural Hair
Kathleen
 Cleaver was the first female member of the Black Panther Party’s decision
 making body. In this interview, Cleaver challenges Euro-centric standards of
 beauty while expressing the BPP’s stance on self-love, and Black revival
 through celebrating different images of Blackness. She really does make a case
 for “the personal is political”!
Although
 Black women have not always identified with labels such as “feminist,” Black
 women have advocated for women’s issues as early as the 19th century.
 Black women have fought for economic justice/equality, against racism, against
 sexism, and against imperialism throughout U.S. history. In fact, the first
 wave white feminists learned much of their organizing and political strategies
 from Black, female abolitionists.
The
 late 1960s and the 1970s did witness an increasing number of Black women
 articulating their experience around the words “feminist” or “feminism,” but
 also a number of Black women challenging the structure of feminist movements.
 The Women’s Liberation Movement (WLM) took the nation by storm, voicing many
 women’s grievances, but it did not appeal to many Black women and women of
 color who interpreted the movement’s work as an agenda that principally
 furthered white, upper-class women’s issues. Furthermore, many Black women
 considered their involvement in mixed gender spaces more pressing because they
 identified more with their male counterparts’ struggles than with the affluent
 white women’s problems. Kathleen Cleaver explained this phenomenon:
“The problems of Black women and the problems of White women are so completely diverse they cannot possibly be solved in the same type of organization nor met by the same type of activity… [but] I can understand how a White woman cannot relate to a White man.”
This
 racial solidarity in some ways led some Black women in mixed gender groups to
 tolerate oppressive ideologies to avoid division, or to subscribe to certain
 roles. In the pamphlet, “Panther Sisters on Women’s Liberation,” some women
 insisted that “Black men understand that their manhood is not dependent on
 keeping Black women subordinate to them,” but also claimed that because “our
 men have been sort of castrated,” women had to avoid taking up too much space
 in leadership so that Black men would not have any “fear of women dominating
 the whole political scene”. That kind of admonition to other Black women
 invokes ideas about pathologized matriarchy. Other women in the BPP adopted
 more masculine roles in order to be taken more seriously. Assata Shakur
 confessed, “You had to develop this whole arrogant kind of macho style in
 order to be heard… We were just involved in those day to day battles for
 respect in the Black Panther Party,” revealing the complications in
 negotiating one’s gender identity and the implications of said gender, even in
 anti-oppression organizations.
Although
 the climate of the BPP proved difficult to articulate in terms of gender
 politics, it was due to Black women’s participation in mixed gender groups and
 organizations (as opposed to the tendencies of some white, radical feminist
 groups who championed separatism), that Black women could interrogate the
 sexist and misogynistic ideologies present in anti-oppression organizations.
 Various BPP chapters even collaborated with the Women’s Liberation Movement at
 times, such as in 1969 when WLM members protested the cruel treatment of
 imprisoned Panther women.
Black
 women’s presence in the BPP forced men to reconsider their sexist assumptions.
 Even Party leaders like Eldridge Cleaver shifted positions. In 1968, Cleaver
 limited Black women’s political potential only to “pussy power,” or, the idea
 that Black women should withhold sex from Black men until he was ready to
 “pick up a gun” and embrace his own activism. In contrast, a year later,
 responding the cruel treatment of Black Panther women in prisons, Cleaver
 asserted that “if we want to go around and call ourselves a vanguard
 organization, then we’ve got to be… the vanguard also in the area of women’s
 liberation, and set an example in that area.” Black women demonstrated that
 sexist gender norms could not dictate their worth, and that in the grand
 scheme of things, the police imprisoned them just as they imprisoned Black
 men, and that white society had stripped them of their femininity just as it
 had stripped Black men of their masculinity.
Sources:
Anon.
 “Panther Sisters on Women’s Liberation.” In Heath, ed. Off the Pigs! Pg. 339.
Cleaver,
 Eldridge. “Message to Sister Erica Hugggins of the Black Panther Party.”The Black Panther Party. 5 July 1969.
 Reprinted in Foner, The Black Panthers
 Speak. 98-99.
Cleaver,
 Eldridge. “Speech to the Nebraska Peace and Freedom Party Convention,” 24
 August 1968. Pg. 22
Matthews,
 Tracye. “No One Ever Asks, What a Man’s Place in the Revolution Is”: Gender
 and the Politics of The Black Panther Party 1966-1971.” In: The Black Panther Party [Reconsidered].
 Edited by Charles E. Jones. Black Classic Press, Baltimore, 1998. Pg. 274,
 284, 290.
December
 18, 2013
In
 1965, then Assistant Secretary of the US Department of Labor, Daniel Patrick
 Moynihan, issued a report about the question of poverty and the Black American
 population. Startled by statistics that showed that the unemployment rate of
 Black people doubled that of white people, Moynihan set out to expose the
 conditions that economically limited African Americans.
Given
 its historical context, the Moynihan Report actually represented a radical
 conceptualization of the relationship between gender identities, family
 structure, and socio-economic class; however, Moynihan’s statement falls short
 of the mark by pointing to Black matriarchy as the damning factor. While
 recognizing that structural conditions that originate in the enslaving of
 Black people in America has contributed to and caused many of the social
 disadvantages that plague African American communities contemporarily,
 Moynihan implicates Black motherhood thereby suggesting that without a
 patriarchal structure, the Black family is doomed to fail. “He does… identify
 the fundamental problem confronting the Black community as the ‘tangle of
 pathology’ associated with a matriarchal family structure,” contest Juan J.
 Battle and Michael D. Bennet in “African-American Families and Public
 Policies.” By legitimizing Western, patriarchal culture over non-white
 alternatives to the family structure, Moynihan prioritizes the suggestion that
 the Black family is deviant and therefore pathologically damaged instead of
 demonstrating how institutions like racism, sexism and classism systematically
 oppress Black families. In this way, he roots the problem in a presumed cultural
 deficiency, shifting the onus to Black mothers to stop corrupting the family
 structure instead of on the government to stop discriminating against people
 of color.
African
 Americans had initiated conversations about the Black family long before the
 Moynihan Report; nevertheless, using anecdotal, historical, sociological, and
 statistical evidence, the Report validated many Black men’s sentiments of
 “castration” and their resentments about a lost masculinity. Without a doubt,
 some Black men within the Black Panther Party endorsed the Moynihan Report to
 sanction their own desires for male superiority. Even Black Panther Party
 co-founder Huey Newton attested to this male inferiority complex:
“[The Black man] feels that he is something less than a man… Often his wife (who is able to secure a job as a man, cleaning for White people) is the breadwinner. He is therefore, viewed as quiet worthless by his wife and children” (Huey Newton, To Die for the People. Pg. 81)”
Interestingly
 enough, although Newton does not necessarily subscribe to the subordination of
 Black women to elevate the Black man, he does not attempt here to undermine
 the assumption that men should be
 the breadwinner, that womenshould not head
 the Black family, or that the solution is to esteem the Black man above the
 Black woman. Women, especially those in the BPP, would have to create most of
 the awareness about the fallibility of this form of social change.
Sources:
Battle,
 Juan J. and Bennet, Michael D. “African-American Families and Public Policy:
 The Legacy of the Moynihan Report.” Sage Publications, London and New Delhi,
 1997. Pg. 154 
Moynihan,
 Daniel P. “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” 1965 
Newton,
 H. To Die for the People: The Writings of
 Huey P. Newton. City Lights Publishers, 2009. Pg. 81
December 18, 2013
In the
 1960s, Maulana Karenga spearheaded Us, a Los Angeles-based organization
 dedicated to raising Black people’s awareness of their cultural heritage. Us
 propounded the notion that a revival of African traditions would elevate the
 condition of African Americans. Whether real or contrived, these traditions
 would ennoble Black people in new ways.
[Malauna
 Karenga, founder of “Us,” creator of the pan-African/African American Holiday
 of Kwanzaa, intellectual and writer.]
The
 Black Panther Party and Us supported each other ideologically, and Maulana
 Karenga even attended various BPP meetings and rallies. In spite of this
 initial alliance, the two groups diverged when their ethics no longer aligned.
 The BPP pushed back against Us’ idea that all Black people were allies in the
 struggle simply because of the color of their skin. On January 17, 1969, a
 shootout erupted between BPP and Us members during a Black Student Union
 meeting at UCLA, which resulted in the death of two BPP members. From that
 point onward, the relationship between the two organizations never
 recovered.
Although
 the Black Panther Party and Us often feuded, the earliest philosophies in the
 Black Panther Party do reflect many of Karenga’s beliefs. With respect to
 women, Karenga championed female submission in the name of reinstating Black
 male authority. He observed:
“What makes a woman appealing is femininity and she can’t be feminine without being submissive. A man has to be a leader and he has to be a man who bases his leadership on knowledge, wisdom, and understanding… The role of the woman is to inspire her man, educate their children and participate in social development. We say male supremacy is based on three things: tradition, acceptance, and reason. Equality is false; it’s the devil’s concept.”
Karenga
 espoused a complimentary gender theory; this theory depends on the credence
 that Black women serve to affirm Black men’s superiority. The foundation for
 this brand of Black racial uplift remains in the notion that empowering Black
 men necessarily will translate to empower Black communities. Ironically, this
 philosophy does not interrogate the premise that the restoration of Black male
 supremacy only occurs insomuch as Black women inspire and educate these
 Black men. Unfortunately, many of these problematic viewpoints continued to
 circulate in BPP chapters after Karenga’s departure from the group,
 necessitating that the Party resolve many of its gendered issues in later
 years.
Sources: 
Halisi,
 Clyde, ed., The Quotable Karenga.
 Los Angeles: Us Organization, 1967. Pgs. 27-28
Matthews,
 Tracye. “No One Ever Asks, What a Man’s Place in the Revolution Is”: Gender
 and the Politics of The Black Panther Party 1966-1971.” In: The Black Panther Party [Reconsidered].
 Edited by Charles E. Jones. Black Classic Press, Baltimore, 1998. Pg. 272
December 18, 2013
How is
 it that an organization so committed to righting the wrongs committed against
 Black people, could often support
 ideologies that endorsed the subordination of women? It is important to
 recognize that the Black Panther Party (BPP) did not exist in isolation;
 competing concepts about gender and sexuality perpetuated and upheld in
 mainstream society shaped the social frameworks of BPP members. The process of
 dismantling sexism meant theoretical and practical work on the part of all Party members. One female Black
 Panther who worked in the Oakland and international chapters, the late Connie
 Matthews assessed the disparity between the BPP’s philosophies and practices.
“I mean, it’s one thing to get up and talk about ideologically you believe this. But you’re asking people to change attitudes and lifestyles overnight, which is not just possible. So I would say tht there was a lot of struggle and there was a lot of male chauvinism… But I would say all in all, in terms of equality… that women had very, very strong leadership roles and were respected as such. It didn’t mean it came automatically.” (Interview with Tracye Matthews, 26 June 1991; Kingston, Jamaica.)
The men and the women in the Black Panther Party had
 internalized various views that validated sexism and even a racialized form of
 sexism. This brand of misogyny that specifically targeted Black women
 (contemporarily referred to as misogynoir) manifested itself in public
 discourse in two important ways: throughcultural
 nationalism, and through the Moynihan
 Report. True equality in the Black Panther Party
 meant interrogating these cultural “norms” and exchanging those views for a
 more egalitarian framework. 
Source:
 Matthews, Tracye. “No One Ever Asks, What a Man’s Place in the Revolution Is”:
 Gender and the Politics of The Black Panther Party 1966-1971.” In:The Black Panther Party [Reconsidered].
 Edited by Charles E. Jones. Black Classic Press, Baltimore, 1998. Pg. 289
December 18, 2013
1969, the Free Breakfast
 for School Children Program was initiated at St. Augustine’s
 Church in Oakland by the Black Panther
 Party. The Panthers would cook and serve food to the poor inner city
 youth of the area.
Male
 figures in the Black Panther Party, such as Bobby Seale, Huey Newton, and
 David Hilliard, were key to the initiation process of this project; however,
 Black women figured greatly in the execution of
 the first Breakfast Programs. Neighborhood mothers, who lived close to St.
 Augustine’s Church and actively participated in local parent-teacher
 associations, focused their energies on the program, even though they were
 often unaffiliated with the BPP, and made it a success. Female members of the
 Black Panther Party also contributed to the Free Breakfast Program by feeding
 as well as educating the children present. Although tensions often arose
 between the more conservative community mothers — who preferred that the
 children quietly and orderly ate — and the Black Panther women — who brought
 their restless, activist spirits into the spaces — these women cooperated to
 transform their neighborhoods.
Ms.
 Ruth Beckford, a parishioner at St. Augustine’s Church who helped to establish
 the Free Breakfast program with Bobby Seale and head of the Church, Father
 Earl Neal, spoke of the communal uplift that occurred through nourishing the
 community’s children. “When we were doing it the school principal came down
 and told us how different the children were. They weren’t falling asleep in
 class, they weren’t crying with stomach cramps, how alert they were and it was
 wonderful” (412), Beckford insists in an interview, demonstrating that by
 feeding the young children, the predominantly female Black Panther Party and
 Black community members radicalized their youth’s relation to education
 systems and thus their youth’s access to societal opportunities. The Free
 Breakfast Program, a largely woman-run project, asserted Black people’s right
 to food, to preparations so that they could thrive academically, and to
 conditions to further their position in society.
Source:
 Heynen, Nik. “Bending the Bars of Empire from Every Ghetto for Survival: The
 Black Panther Party’s Radical Antihunger Politics of Social Reproduction and
 Scale.” Department of Geography, University of Georgia, published online: May
 2009.
December
 17, 2013
Women of the Black Panther Party demonstrating in front of
 Alameda County Courthouse Oakland, CA
 
![]()  | 
  ![]()  | 
 
Taken from “Black Panthers: 1968” by Howard L. Bingham
December 17, 2013
“[W]omen ran the BPP pretty much. I don’t now how it got to be a male’s party or thought of as being a male’s party. Because those things, when you really look at it in terms of society, those things are looked on as being woman things, you know, feeding children, taking care of the sick and uh, so. Yeah, we did that. We actually ran the BPP’s programs.” (Frankye Malika Adams in an interview with Tracye Matthews, 29 September 1994; Harlem, New York)
When
 the media invokes images of the Black Panther Party (BPP), it often displays
 images of gun-toting Black men in military garb. Historical representations
 have relegated many women who participated in and devoted their energies to
 the Black Panther Party to a prop status. Excluding the outliers like Assata
 Shakur and Kathleen Cleaver, women in the Black Panther Party earn their time
 in the spotlight insomuch as they endorse the male cause; even some of the
 more famous images of these Black women feature them holding up signs for the
 Free Huey Campaign. Despite these depictions, Black women played a fundamental
 role in the Black Panther Party. Often comprising the majority of local BPP
 groups, women staffed and coordinated free breakfast programs, liberation
 schools, and medical clinics. The Party even sought out Black women
 unaffiliated with the organization, such as women on welfare, grandmothers and
 community figures, to staff these initiatives. If these women played such a
 fundamental role in the infrastructure of the BPP, why aren’t Black women as
 celebrated for their contributions? History has a way of degrading work that
 mirrors “traditional” female duties to categories like “community service” or
 “support work”. The term “support work,” especially invokes the connotation of
 inferior, menial and subordinate labor. Sexism not only impacted what jobs
 Black women in the BPP received or fulfilled but also how history conveys the
 value of said efforts.
Source:
 Matthews, Tracye. “No One Ever Asks, What a Man’s Place in the Revolution Is”:
 Gender and the Politics of The Black Panther Party 1966-1971.” In:The Black Panther Party [Reconsidered].
 Edited by Charles E. Jones. Black Classic Press, Baltimore, 1998.  
December
 17, 2013
“Black
 liberation politics became equated with black men’s attempts to regain their
 manhood at the expense of black women,” asserts Anita Simmons in the chapter
 “Black Womanhood, Misogyny and Hip-Hop Culture: A Feminist Intervention”.
 Simmons continues, “In the Black Panther Party, attainment of black manhood
 meant the degradation of black women and womanhood.” Sexism in the Black
 Panther Party (BPP) silenced the voices of Black women to promote a Black
 nationalist agenda that became conflated with the idea of preserving Black
 masculinity. This project aims to examine how this brand of racialized sexism
 in the Black Panther Party silenced and even erased the narratives about
 radical Black womanhood in the late 1960s from our social history. What are these
 narratives? How did women in the Black Panther Party radicalize their
 position? This project will also examine the interaction between Black
 feminists of the 1970s and their criticism of Black men’s understanding of
 Black womanhood. What was the stance of women in the Black Panther Party? Were
 there Black feminists who were also Black Panthers?
ABOUT
Although
 the Black Panther Party (BPP) revolutionized the condition of Black people and
 communities in the 1960s, sexism in the group silenced the voices of Black
 women to promote a Black nationalist agenda that became conflated with the
 idea of preserving Black masculinity. This project aims to examine how and why
 this brand of racialized sexism in the Black Panther Party operated in the
 group, and to shed light on some of the silenced and erased the narratives
 about radical Black womanhood.























