User Profile

It's been a fascinating but difficult read at times. Seeing the world from the perspective of a young First Nation's child in 1950s and 60s rural Canada is interesting, but the abuse and violence is terribly upsetting.

It seems that Chacaby's two-spirit nature was noticed and honored by those who loved her before she had words for it. Her grandmother and a few other relatives know she is different and her uncle even taught her skills that are traditionally taught to boys. It's quite different than how most people love their children, often projecting their desires onto them instead of loving them for who they are.

I'm excited to move on to the part of the book where Ma-Nee claims their power, not only by owning their identity but through becoming a force in the LGBTQ community.

@seanderson13 I'm doing the same thing! I read it for the first time over 20 years ago. Are there things about the book that hit you differently now than when you first read it?

@archlentil I read this over 20 years ago and would like to re-read it. I also remember reading Dorothy Allison's Bastard Out of Carolina around the same time.

I have to say I'm a bit surprised by this book's subject matter. So far, the book seems to be about the hardship of being a heterosexual and cis gender woman. We follow the characters' experiences with emotionally and physically abusive men, sexual violence, the horrors of pregnancy, miscarriage, female genital mutilation and more. In Part 1, for instance, the main character Chiamaka searches for true love while shrinking herself for male partners who do not truly see her or love her. Each part of the book describes different aspects of women's suffering.

In so many ways, reading Dream Count makes me feel like we're still living in the same world of Alice Walker's The Color Purple, written in 1982 but set in the early 1900s. As a queer woman in the United States who has never defined myself by my romantic relationships, my marriage or maternal status, or my proximity to men, much of this feels a bit archaic even while I realize that many women today experience these things. Additionally, the book is set in Nigeria where gender roles may still be more limited than they are in the U.S. and homophobia is indeed still legal.

At a time when women are deciding to be "childfree," have our own careers, are deciding to remain single rather than be dragged down by bad men, are out and queer, own property by ourselves, publicly call out sexual violence (#MeToo), etc. the themes of this book only present one side of what could be said to comprise "women's experiences." (And to be clear, Adichie does not claim in any way to be speaking for all women.)

I keep thinking about the transphobic comments Adichie has made in the past while I read this book. It occurs to me that if you think of womanhood as a biologically disadvantaged state of being, largely defined by the vulnerability and hardship of having a uterus and vagina, it becomes impossible to understand how individuals assigned male at birth could ever possibly be women. There is no excuse for transphobia, and I hope that women like Chimamanda Adichie who don't understand how you can be a woman if you haven't had to deal with menstrual cramps every month since the age of 12 seek out narratives by trans women to build a better understanding. What is necessary is the redefinition of womanhood based on notions of power, intuition, softness as strength, beauty, the carrying of water, the tending of gardens, the provision of food, non-biological motherhood, the ability to heal ourselves and others. To be sure, trans women's narratives also often center the experience of suffering, for different but related reasons (subjugation by cis men--the patriarchy--is a problem for us all.) Still, I think understanding trans women are women can help cis women understand our own womanhood in a way that is actually empowering.

I finished this book a couple of weeks ago, but I keep remembering the part about how the author did not realize that Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrise Cullors was an artist. Ebonyjanice explains that so many of us become known for our activism--our role in interrupting white supremacy--that our actually work, our creative work becomes backgrounded: "We are being known for our resistance and not for our living."

She also goes on to quote her own tweet, "I just thought about the fact that I may never fully self-actualize because I do not know what it looks like to dream of my highest self outside of white supremacist systems. Which is to say, everything I create is created from resistance rather than from a place of just being."

"I wanted to consider what my highest imagination of myself revealed without white supremacy as the filter through which I create, build and exist. I realized that in order for me to be able to get to the work my soul must have, I needed either a new vision or a clearer vision of how to do justice work that didn't cost me my body. This, intuitively, called me to dreaming as a deep, intentional part of my practice."

This book is another step along the path toward the formation and realization of Black womanist thought. I am 46 years old and grew up with a copy of The Color Purple in my home. I read Their Eyes Were Watching God for the first time when I was in high school and I minored in Women & Gender studies in college, reading bell hooks, Assata, Audre Lorde and so many others. In the last several years, I've become intimately familiar with the writing and work of Patricia Hersey. For someone like me, this book was mostly review--and I think that's a good thing. It was a good opportunity to refresh my memory and to witness younger generations building on the knowledge passed on by our ancestors.

That being said, I think what is needed now is the centering of the most vulnerable and oppressed among us. I think that womanist thought will benefit from centering the voices and perspectives of trans and disabled individuals and may also make these kinds of books less repetitive for those of us who have been following womanist theory for a long time.

There were moments in the book when I thought for sure that the author would turn her focus to transgender experiences (such as the chapter on the importance of names), but she did not. She calls out transphobia on at least a handful of occasions in the book, so it's not that she is transphobic. It's just that she is limited by her own identity and personal experience, which is absolutely natural. So, it's not that I have major critiques of this book, it's more that it makes me want to seek out more womanist writing from queer, immigrant & first gen, trans & non-binary, disabled, etc. perspectives. And not just for the sake of "diversity," but because womanist theory is so potentially revolutionary, and we can only complete the mission if all of these voices are allowed to shape it.

When you're reading a book, but the book is reading you.