In recent years, colorism—the discrimination within the Black community based on skin tone—has reemerged as a central topic in discussions on race, identity, and representation. Yet, as the conversation has gained visibility, a troubling pattern has surfaced: Black men increasingly dominate or redirect discussions that were originally centered on the lived experiences of Black women. This phenomenon reveals not only gendered power dynamics but also deeper insecurities, social conditioning, and historical patterns of male-centered discourse in the Black community.

Colorism affects both genders, but its manifestations differ sharply. For Black women, it often determines beauty standards, desirability, and social value (Hunter, 2007). For Black men, colorism intersects more with social perception, criminalization, and masculinity (Hall, 2010). Yet, when colorism is discussed publicly—particularly online—many Black men position themselves as equal or greater victims, reframing the issue around their own grievances. This redirection often invalidates or minimizes the gendered suffering that darker-skinned Black women have historically endured.

At the root of this hijacking is defensiveness. Many Black men interpret critiques of colorism as personal attacks rather than systemic analysis. When Black women point out that men frequently idealize lighter-skinned women in media, dating, and social hierarchies, some men respond by claiming they too experience colorism from women. While men can experience shade bias, the scale, visibility, and historical roots of female-targeted colorism are far deeper.

This defensiveness is also a product of patriarchal conditioning. In patriarchal societies, men are socialized to lead conversations—even those about women’s pain. Within the Black community, this dynamic is intensified by centuries of emasculation under white supremacy, leading some Black men to over-assert authority in racial and gender dialogues (hooks, 2004). When colorism is raised, they may subconsciously reclaim the center stage to reestablish power and control over the narrative.

Furthermore, the male gaze in Black culture often amplifies colorist biases. From hip-hop videos to film and advertising, light-skinned women are frequently depicted as the ideal partner or feminine standard. When women challenge this imagery, some men perceive it as an indictment of their preferences rather than a critique of systemic conditioning (Stephens & Phillips, 2003). The reaction is often defensive, shifting focus from accountability to victimhood.

Social media has magnified this divide. Online platforms provide visibility for darker-skinned women to share their experiences of exclusion, ridicule, and invisibility. However, whenever these conversations gain traction, they are often derailed by men insisting that “colorism affects Black men too” or “dark-skinned men are fetishized, so it’s not the same.” These counterarguments distort the conversation’s intent, transforming a gendered critique into a false equivalence.

The fetishization of dark-skinned men—often cited by male participants—does not equate to systemic bias. It is frequently a hypersexualized stereotype rooted in colonial myths of Black male virility (Collins, 2000). This fetishization benefits neither gender, but it differs fundamentally from the colorist exclusion and humiliation endured by darker-skinned women in beauty, marriage, and media representation.

Another reason for male hijacking of colorism discourse lies in emotional illiteracy. Many Black men are not encouraged to process vulnerability or collective responsibility. Instead of engaging empathetically with women’s experiences, they intellectualize or deflect the issue to avoid guilt. This response is symptomatic of broader issues of gender relations and communication in the Black community.

Historically, the conversation around colorism was initiated by Black women scholars and activists, such as Alice Walker, who coined the term “colorism” in 1982 (Walker, 1982). Later scholars like Margaret Hunter (2007) and Ronald Hall (2010) analyzed how color hierarchies shape gendered oppression. Yet, as the discourse entered mainstream culture, male voices increasingly reframed the issue as a unisex problem, erasing the distinctly gendered dimensions.

Part of the reason this hijacking persists is because Black women’s pain is often minimized in both white and Black spaces. The intersection of race and gender renders their experiences less visible. When women assert that colorism harms them uniquely, they are accused of “dividing the community.” This silencing mirrors historical patterns in which Black women were expected to prioritize racial unity over gender justice (Crenshaw, 1991).

Another factor is male privilege within Blackness. Even within an oppressed racial group, men often benefit from patriarchal structures that validate their voices more than women’s. Thus, when Black men speak on colorism, their perspectives receive more attention and legitimacy, even when their narratives distort or misrepresent the issue.

Media representation further amplifies this imbalance. Films, songs, and podcasts that address colorism often feature male-led discussions, focusing on how men are “judged for being too dark” or “overlooked by women.” Meanwhile, darker-skinned actresses and public figures are still underrepresented, underpaid, or stereotyped (Monk, 2014). The structural inequity remains gendered, even if both genders experience forms of bias.

There is also an economic incentive behind this derailment. Male creators and influencers who discuss colorism from a male-centered perspective often gain larger audiences, as their narratives resonate with both male defensiveness and patriarchal norms. In contrast, women who speak about colorism face online harassment, accusations of bitterness, or dismissal as “divisive feminists.”

Psychologically, the hijacking of colorism discourse reflects projection. Many men project their internalized pain—stemming from racism, classism, or emotional neglect—onto discussions about women. Rather than confronting their own conditioning, they reframe the issue to validate their victimhood. This projection protects the ego but prevents accountability.

Colorism is, at its core, a gendered system of preference and exclusion. While men may experience it in terms of status or stereotype, women endure it in ways that intersect with desirability, marriage prospects, and self-worth. When men dominate these conversations, they obscure these nuances, flattening a multidimensional issue into a one-size-fits-all grievance narrative.

The solution lies not in silencing Black men but in rebalancing the dialogue. True allyship requires men to listen, not lead, when the topic concerns women’s pain. They must learn to amplify women’s voices without centering themselves. Doing so transforms the conversation from competition into collaboration.

Academically and culturally, it is vital to reassert that Black women’s experiences of colorism are foundational to the discourse. Their stories, research, and activism birthed this conversation; erasing or minimizing them reproduces the very inequality colorism exposes. The aim should not be to debate who suffers more, but to dismantle the structures that create suffering altogether.

Ultimately, the hijacking of colorism discussions by Black men is a reflection of unresolved patriarchal dynamics within the Black community. It reveals the lingering effects of colonial trauma—how oppression can turn inward, causing those once silenced to silence others. Healing requires courage: the courage for men to decenter themselves and for women to reclaim their voices unapologetically.

In the end, the conversation about colorism must return to its rightful center: the Black woman’s experience. Her story is not a subset of the Black struggle—it is the mirror that reflects how deeply white supremacy has fractured our perception of beauty, worth, and identity. Until her truth is fully heard and honored, the dialogue remains incomplete.

---

References

Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Hall, R. E. (2010). The Melanin Millennium: Skin Color as 21st Century International Discourse. Springer.
hooks, b. (2004). We Real Cool: Black Men and Masculinity. Routledge.
Hunter, M. (2007). The Persistent Problem of Colorism: Skin Tone, Status, and Inequality. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 237–254.
Monk, E. P. (2014). Skin Tone Stratification among Black Americans, 2001–2003. Social Forces, 92(4), 1313–1337.
Stephens, D. P., & Phillips, L. D. (2003). Freaks, Gold Diggers, Divas, and Dykes: The Sociohistorical Development of Adolescent African American Women’s Sexual Scripts. Sexuality & Culture, 7(1), 3–49.
Walker, A. (1982). In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist Prose. Harcourt Brace.