I recognize his point, however, in friends who’ve been typecast in the role of “Strong Black Woman” or “Strong Indigenous Woman,” as if this were some natural attribute rather than the accumulated practice of surviving dehumanizing circumstances and developing resilience. As if strong is a permanent state and they don’t need tenderness, nurturing, and to be able to let …
This is potent. Because one version of “strong” is to not need anyone. Such typecasting is costly (as all of it is, to your point), and costs us all. Strong? Sure. I can manhandle a hundred pound couch into my garage.
That’s easily measured by the size of my considerable muscles.
But strong enough to be vulnerable?Well now. That’s a whole other issue. Again, to your point. How we are so driven by such different interpretations, including our desperate need to glorify, find that warrior woman, someone we can call goddess. Why do we need to? Because typecasting is easier, recognizing that strength is uniquely defined by every single individual is much harder and more responsible work.