General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy women like Patricia Arquette continue to whitewash Feminism.
Updated by Kelsey McKinney on February 23, 2015, 1:02 p.m. ET @mckinneykelsey [email protected]
Patricia Arquette will be billed as a feminist hero for raising awareness about the wage gap in America during a fiery Oscar acceptance speech Sunday night — but maybe she shouldn't be.
Holding her first golden statue after years of great roles, Arquette waved her arms around the microphone stand and proclaimed that women "have fought for everybody else's equal rights. It's our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America."
She was riveting and passionate. She drew hearty applause from Meryl Streep in the front row and left the stage triumphant. But backstage, maybe in the heat of the moment, Arquette defined a little more clearly exactly whose equality she wanted to fight for — her own.
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)If so, why the heterosexist slant to the article?
Her comments may have been somewhat inarticulate, but she did say...""It is time for us. It is time for women … "
I think this is a case where people are actually looking for a problem, as opposed to seeing the message for what it really means, women should be treated as equals.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Exactly. Someone at Vox apparently desperately needed to fill some column inches before deadline.
Arquette called for equality for women and equality for all. She could have stated it a bit more elegantly, perhaps, but no message could be better.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But thats just a black publication. So. Who cares what they say. You know better what should offend us.
http://thegrio.com/2015/02/23/patricia-arquette-blacks-gays-white-women/
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Each group fighting for equal rights and treatment should ideally be joined with the others in mutual support.
We've been subdivided into warring factions, climbing on and clawing at each other for priority attention. Every group wants support from the others, but still wants its own struggle to be first in line. That's self defeating and keeps us all down.
There is one message that needs to be heard and I think it would be more effective to shout it all together: Full equality in rights and treatment for every single person.
Anything less is playing into the hands of the oppressors, who just love to see us fighting each other instead of them.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If she wanted more support, better not to tell blacks and gays they need to work for anybody. They have been there all along.
Divide and conquer my ass. Black women vote democratic at a higher rate thatn any other group in America. We always vote for equal rights. No need to tell us black people we need to help women now. And black men don't owe fuck all to anybody. They are not and never have been the oppressor. They fought with us for our rights without much support from anybody. Black feminists used to hav to go to the back of the bus even within the feminist movement.
I love this obliviousness to the discussions that black people have and the anger that we see things differently. It shows that nobody here even bothers to read black publications and think what we say is irrelevant or should not be discussed. Black feminists need to hush. Shut up if we are offended. Our feelings don't matter. Only the movement that we have no power in matters. This is why most black women do not join. Womaninst instead of feminist. We can say what we want as womanists and not have to hush as to not upset the majority.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I think there has been a massive over-reaction on this.
She was trying to do a good thing, and while speaking off the cuff, white, straight privilege snuck up on her. She wasn't trying to be an asshole, she just fooked up. Happens to people all the time, even to people with the very best of intentions, like her.
But sometimes we on the left eat our own.
Now, instead of accepting her mea culpa and focusing on call for a renewed effort to combat sexism, we're talking about this. NOT productive, IMO. She knows she fooked up. Let's get back on target.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)often the feminist movement has and continues to exclude women of color. You can bitch about it all you want, but it is the truth.
And that you and others continue to focus on the FIRST part of Arquette's statement, which is NOT the part that is in contention, is not lost on the rest of us. You are trying to be slick but we are not stupid.
It is not the first part of her statement that people are angry with; it's the following statement that suggests that blacks and gays need to give up our struggle and only fight for women (read: white women). She can go to hell with that bullshit! Straight to hell!
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Enjoy!
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Ideally, yes. But it can easily become a one-sided thing unless the needs and struggles of all such groups are acknowledged.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]That's a core part of my point. Perhaps I assumed too much in thinking it was obvious.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)You still don't get it? There are some white feminists who admit that they see what Arquette's problem is. Why don't you?
Read it again...
"It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
That is the part of her statement that has created the division and outrage. Thank goodness that there are white people, white feminists, LGBT who see exactly what the problem is and have written about it!
[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Thanks.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
You are by no means the only black person to see her comments the way that you do. Hell, there are many, many white feminists that do as well.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Perfect.
I tried not to say anything but I have a problem with my filters.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
romanic
(2,841 posts)That's pretty much all it is really.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)"It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
Just like that, with one comment backstage, Arquette muddied the golden speech she had made minutes before. She created a divide between what straight white women want and what everyone else wants, and that's exactly the problem with modern feminism.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)sort of like we're worked for Gay and minority rights, so now you should come work for ours..........as if 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)I can understand why some are seeing it the way you are claiming, but, as you say, it was clumsy wording. I would even posit that this kerfuffle could be related to sexism. The very idea she spoke out for women now has to be sliced and diced.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)Does that excuse her heterosexism? Or does it preclude that sexism couldn't be an issue?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)which apparently need repeating
"It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
Just like that, with one comment backstage, Arquette muddied the golden speech she had made minutes before. She created a divide between what straight white women want and what everyone else wants, and that's exactly the problem with modern feminism.
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)You do realize that lesbians, some bisexuals, and transgender women are women, right? IF she is "pointing the exclusionary nature of Arquettes backstage comments" then why no mention of those women?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)now they owe us and hetroism was on Arquette's part not Kelsey's
"It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
Just like that, with one comment backstage, Arquette muddied the golden speech she had made minutes before. She created a divide between what straight white women want and what everyone else wants, and that's exactly the problem with modern feminism.
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)The primary focus, like Arquette's alleged slight, is heterosexually oriented. Perhaps LBT women aren't as important? Perhaps they need to decide if they are LBT or women first? Are they worthy or more than a passing comment about the comments from Arquette? Maybe the rights of LBT and G's just aren't as important?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)because it seemed more all inclusive to me 
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)If you are talking about the author, you are incorrect. She is focused on one area: race. LBT women are a "side note." Then again, maybe as a gay man, I don't really count? Maybe my struggle just isn't that important, after all the author stated:
The struggle for justice and equality in America is everyone's struggle, but those struggles are not equal.
But, after all, I am just a gay person, so who really cares?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so there is a point of reference
"It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
Just like that, with one comment backstage, Arquette muddied the golden speech she had made minutes before. She created a divide between what straight white women want and what everyone else wants, and that's exactly the problem with modern feminism.
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
now your to which I replied with a question asking if you meant she was referring only to Gay men?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6270740
now you claim I am saying Arquette was being inclusive hardly she was IMO saying that the Gay and minority communities with all of their member are outside of women's issues, hardly inclusive
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)You, in fact, did claim Arquette was being inclusive, in her offense. Why did you continue to ignore the author's heterosexism? Are you claiming she really wasn't being heterosexist? Why do you not acknowledge her claim some struggles aren't as "equal?"
now you claim I am saying Arquette was being inclusive hardly she was IMO saying that the Gay and minority communities with all of their member are outside of women's issues, hardly inclusive
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6270773
Are you claiming gay men aren't part of the offense?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)is being discussed and what part of "all of their members" do you not seem to understand?
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)Not as important? Not "equal" as the author claims? Who stated "all of their members" other than you?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)minority communities your opinion seems to differ and when you state hetrosexism Arquette may well have been in her backstage comments. but IMO the author was not, in faact the article is about Arquette's exclusionary backstage comments
"It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
however if you are okay with Arquettes comments then what more can I say
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)However if you are okay with the author's heterosexism, then what more can I say. Perhaps some struggles are not "equal", as stated by the author.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but of course you can cam keep claiming that she and I by extension are being hetrosexist for being offended bu Arquette's comment
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)Pointing out the comments wasn't heterosexism, it was ignoring the comments. Heterosexism is not being offended by what was said, it is by what wasn't said.
LBGT struggles aren't "equal"? Is that what is being claimed by the author?
The struggle for justice and equality in America is everyone's struggle, but those struggles are not equal.
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in the article, perhaps you could include the preceding or following sentence, I usually include the whole paragraph to avoid any misreading or confusion
However IMO the author was pointing out how Feminism has focused on White Hetero women, which IMO is quite true
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)exclusionary words. That you cannot see how...
"....and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
is offensive, condescending, and reeks of white female privilege is just being willfully ignorant at this point.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)emotionally and in every respect. I believe that he underwent a sex change. He was called Alexis. I don't know whether he still has that name.
I know for a fact that she is an ardent supporter of gay rights or at least was last time I read about it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Not a brother. She has not been a brother for many years.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Rosa Parks is the supreme example of a woman who fought for the rights of black people, men and women. Black women are still underpaid and overworked. They have a double whammy: they are women and black.
One of the biggest problems is that in our society in many families, the wife, the mother, the grandmother, the woman is expected to carry the primary responsibility for raising the children and caring for the household but is still expected to hold a full-time job. That's a heavy burden, and for many women with children it is too heavy to bear.
One of the poorest segments of our society is that consisting of older women. Often they were underpaid while working if they workd, and that means that their Social Security checks are smaller and they often have little other income or savings. And then in divorce, women in some states come out with very few assets or income. We also have a problem when women are not knowledgeable about their husband's business dealings and discover in divorce that their husband can successfully hide assets from them or can make them feel ashamed and guilty about demanding their fair share of the marital income and assets.
Women are very disadvantaged financially. It's really hard to compete for promotions in the workplace when you are the one who has to take time off from work for children's doctor's appointments and school visits, etc.
Women do need equal pay. Those who are criticizing Patricia Arquette's simple statement. whether they are male or female, are proving that they really don't get it and that they don't really understand the injustice that our society imposes on most women. It's not about white women or Latino women or straight women or lesbian women. It's about all women. We deserve better than we are getting.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and yes Arquette does have a Gay brother and she does support Gay Rights that is not the issue though
"It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
Just like that, with one comment backstage, Arquette muddied the golden speech she had made minutes before. She created a divide between what straight white women want and what everyone else wants, and that's exactly the problem with modern feminism.
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Ridiculous. It is time for women. And people of color including women of color and gay people including lesbians should fight for women's rights because women's rights are their rights. The focus should not be just on gay and lesbian rights or on the rights of people of color but now also on women's rights. This is a lot of fuss about nothing, absolutely nothing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'gay man' or her 'gay brother'. It is offensive to call a woman a man, and Alexis is not gay so that's also inaccurate about Alexis and it implies that you think gay men are the same as trans women and frankly, those of you pulling that crap and then absolving one another of it while diagramming Patricia's sentences to suss out where she is offensive are huge, giant hypocrites dripping with straight privilege.
She does not have a gay brother, she has a trans sister. Learn to live with it. Learn to speak about other people in ways that are not wildly offensive to them and to others in their community. Learn how to do that prior to launching sermons about the flaws in the advocacy of others.
It's not right what you are doing here. You are not the only one. Hold a meeting among DU Straight Folks and learn these things or just do not discuss them at all.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but thanks for telling me as a woman what I am allowed to discuss here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6270865
edited because Bravernak was correcting another poster I replied to Bravernaks correction
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)people who are so swift to forgive themselves and other straights for that bullshit who are also busily diagramming other people's sentences to find offense are operating on a double standard. Discuss whatever you like, but using insulting verbiage about minority groups in a thread in which you take others to task for poorly worded minority advocacy is hypocritical as shit.
No one told you what you can discuss, I pointed out offensive and denigrating language you were using. Keep using it, I'll keep pointing it out.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that being transsexual and being homosexual are not the same thing, any so called 'ignorance' on my part was of the members of the Arquette family the only I had heard of prior to his was Rosanna, but then again I really don't keep up on celebrity stuff
and it seems you wish to give a pass to the person who first stated that Alexis was a Gay man , I find that quite interesting 
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)She's saying that we've fought for everyone else and women have been forgotten. I remember complaints from the 2008 presidential campaign that women seem to always come last.
It amazes me in 2015 how much women are under attack especially in the US.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)I always said the US would elect a male minority before we'd make a woman President. And look. We did.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She was not arguing for white women. She was appealing for all women.
And she was right.
Women are expected to take the primary responsibility for raising America's children while working. Remember how Bill Clinton signed "welfare reform" that pushed single mothers into low wage jobs and their children into day care, often inadequate day care.
It is absolutely true that women, women of color and women who are white, have fought for the rights of LGBT people, of African-Americans (Rosa Parks for example) and all minorities. But have those minorities fought, really fought for a justice for women and children?
I think not. I think that Patricia Arquette is right. We are your mothers. We are your grandmothers. Do you realize that older women are in general among the poorest of Americans -- as are single mothers. I am not saying that older women and single mothers are the absolutely poorest demographic groups, but they are among the poorest.
I support Patricia Arquette's statement.
In fact, I would venture to say that the criticism of her statement that is published in the article quoted in the OP is proof of the truth of Patricia Arquette's statement. The quote in the OP in essence says to us women: Shut up. Stop nagging.
It's the usual criticism of women and our issues.
I'm very grateful to Patricia Arquette for speaking up for women. It's our turn for equal pay and equal rights. And among other things, we need still more representation in our government.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so which comment are you supporting or is it both of them?
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)" women "have fought for everybody else's equal rights. It's our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America." "
It's the same as what she said back stage. She just layed it out.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)"It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)women "have fought for everybody else's equal rights. It's our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America." "
The bolded words have a meaning.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)"It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)The two comments are inseperable. I don't have a problem with either one.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Her comments were insensitive to black people. By saying black people and gays need to fight for 'women' now, she left alot of black women irritated.
Many of us were offended, like it or not. It was her choice to bring race into it.
http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/2015/02/about-patricia-arquette-backstage-2015-oscars.html
Exhibit A
(318 posts)Thank you. 
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Mrs. Arquette even went to the trouble of clarifying her comments:
https://twitter.com/PattyArquette/status/569931943229267968
https://twitter.com/PattyArquette/status/569932882291982336
https://twitter.com/PattyArquette/status/569934217250873344
https://twitter.com/PattyArquette/status/569936012299759617
https://twitter.com/PattyArquette/status/569940008708276224
This *really* shouldn't be an issue now. *Really*. Honestly, I wish some people would get a damned clue already.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)The internet community must slice and dice and parse every statement made by every human being and find offense in every possible iteration and misunderstanding or it could be in danger of ceasing to exist or worse yet finding itself becoming more useful.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Black people need to fight for women. Since they fought for us. I remember her in Ferguson marching. I remember her at black lives matter rallys and showing support. And all those blacks she fought to get roles in her last movie and her series. She fought so damn hard for us. How dare we!!
Bad people I guess. Or, maybe black women have to choose between black and woman?
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)Maybe they need to choose too?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Black women have always had to choose. The feminist movement has a black one and a white one. We were not included and now choose not to be. Getting your issues swept under the rug in favor of what the majority want to focus on excludes you. Many black women will not call themselves feminists because of the way we are asked to focus on just feminism and have to ignore the racism prevalent in this nation. and constantly told how much has been done for us and how grateful we shoud be for them fighting for us like we didn't do the fighting ourselves.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)To this day, there are many within the movement that shun transgender women. This is not new. So, you agree, the article is heterosexist because, as a heterosexual, the author swept the concerns of LBT women under the carpet?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
I think it was about straightest and racially insensitive the way she put it.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)What a bizarre response.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sorry.
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)when Alexis is of course her trans sister. That makes your point very clearly.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)man is okay because you only seem to attack those who find Arquettes back stage statement offensive
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)break down into smaller and smaller factions, each criticizing the others over proper use of language...
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)blondes can't ask for equality? such bullshit.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)"concerted attempt to shut her the fuck DOWN" it pointing out a fault in a statement nothing more or less
chillfactor
(7,574 posts)you should be ashamed of yourself....
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I was born shamed. I rise above. You should be ashamed.
chillfactor
(7,574 posts)People like you ARE the problem.....
bravenak
(34,648 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Hell, if I could rec this, and multiple times, I would! 
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)but I honestly don't think she meant it how it has been taken. I know she is not homophobic. She has a sister that is transgender and has been very supportive from all reports I have read. She has always been pro gay rights. It is one reason I like her so much. I don't think she meant it the way a lot of people are taking it. I think she was trying to say we (all minorities) should stick together and not be divided. Safety in numbers.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)What I'm trying to say is, you've actually hit the nail on the head. BTW, post 14 has links to Mrs. Arquette's attempts to clarify the situation.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you are grading an English term paper, you point out how awkward wording, misplaced modifiers and such could give a meaning different from that which was intended by the kid writing the term paper.
It's really unfortunate that this was done for someone who imho clearly wanted to express support for equality and justice for all races, orientations and genders.
If we are going to pounce on people doing this who don't speak with the clarity of a media consultant with a PhD in English, watch for many fewer celebrities speaking up for anyone, and that's a shame.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Do you really want to dump on Patricia Arquette because she cares about "womens" rights?
I don't care what the fuck color you are, women are being dumped on every dammed day all over the world.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Read it or not. This is how black women feel about it. If that matters at the fuck all.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I leave you alone for the most part.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts) malokvale77
(4,879 posts)the women's right movement started long before all the others. The women's rights movement have always been behind all the rights movements.
When will 'women' ever have their rights as a majority on this planet?
bravenak, I am a women who's rights have been crushed since the day I was born.
I can not dump on Patricia Arquette for advocating for my rights.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And no. Womens rights movement was not always for all women. And the feminist movemnt has not been very welcoming to black women. Because of things like this. We say, hey, we are women too. What do you mean black people need to fight for women? We always have. She forgot about intersectionality. It always happens. We have to choose black or woman. If you were black, directing that at your demographic 'we have worked for you, now its time to work for us?' Like we owe somebody for letting us have rights that our people died for? The struggle is not over. And black women are not keen on leaving black men out or telling them they need to work for us now. We work together. If she had not brought up race it would not have been brought up. She decided to go there.
I never said always. I will not argue with you on the inclusiveness in any movement.
I will just die a fucking old white women. whom nobody cared about accept a few children and grandchildren who thought I was really grand.
Have your rage bravenak. I truly do not know what to do to make you understand that some of us really care.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm not enraged. I see this all the time. My saying something is what enrages.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)as an old white woman, I don't have the right to speak because you said something that enrages?
Do you really think that any thing you say as a woman means more than what I have to say?
Come stay with me awhile, and then speak of how privileged my life is.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You might be enraged. I'm used to this shit.
As for the rest. When did I say you don't have the right to do anything?
I think that what I say as a black woman is From my perspective and it matters just as much as yours.
I have no idea why you mentioned privilege to me just now. I have not called you privileged once on this thread.
If black people feel insulted or black women felt left out by her comments, why the hell are you so pissed at me for saying so? It's all over black twitter. Everybody is talking about it. Thought you guys might like to know.
And the accusations of rage make me think you are calling me the angry black woman. I already said I wasn't mad. Why you are mad, I just cannot figure out. Are you mad because black women felt left out? Because we don't like the way she said ' now it's time for blacks and gays to work for us'?
Funny. I just do not remember her doing anything for black civil rights in my day.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)They claim that because they as individuals aren't living perfect lives, there's no way men can have 'privilege'. Now you are saying to a black woman that because you don't have an awesome life, white women cannot be more privileged than black women. I mean, goodness gracious, do you hear yourself?
Flavia Dzodan had it right, "My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit." Ms. Arquette doesn't seem to have learned that lesson.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Please listen to and consider what she is saying. There is no "rage" coming from her. It is YOU who are dismissing her experiences. Why are you doing this?
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)The feminist movement has not always been welcoming to white lesbians either but that doesn't make ME any less a feminist. It just means I disagree with some of the overall movements practices and will never donate to NOW. I think DU is a good example of how feminism isn't all inclusive...just look back at the great feminist war of 2012 (or whenever it was). I get intersectionality... I was one of the feminists who advocated for a group specific to it.
As far as race is concerned and being told what to do, I was at the Justice for All March this past fall in DC and I was told from the stage that I, as a white person, needed to join this battle if I cared about how fellow human beings are treated. Should I have been offended because a black man told me what to do? Or is it different because I'm white? Should that difference be put aside because I also happen to be lesbian?
Women of all colors die every day because we are seen as less than equal in the eyes of some people (mostly men--of all colors). Women have been on the frontline's of the national fight for equality in all matters of inequality and we've yet to have a serious national discussion about how women are treated as we watch the Republicans attempt to strip rights from us on an almost daily basis. They are the enemy, not Patricia Arquette because she wasn't as articulate as some of us would want her to be.
I, for one, would be more interested in hearing further thoughts from her because after just winning the biggest award someone in her field can win isn't a good time to judge that person on their true thoughts and feelings on the subject. Nor can we truly extrapolate her theories on the subject from two sound bites. Maybe allowing her the time to further expound upon her thoughts on the subject, I'll walk away and say, "Yeah, what an idiot!" or I'll have a better idea of where she's coming from. I mean, if we still continued to judge the LGBT community based on Dykes on Bikes and Leathermen, we'd still be where we were 30 years ago.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)What fight we need to fight. How to do it. What feminism is. We have black feminism as a result. That split has never been healed and may never be. We have concerns that go far beyond the average white feminist, like racism, sometimes from white feminists.
The way things are worded matters. Lords knows I know that. I said something about old white conservative males standing in the way of progress and got ripped by over 400 white duers. For not saying ' not all'. So. If I can deal and understand and discuss that. I think this should be a piece of cake.
Black people fought for their own rights. For her to say that 'women' fought for black rights ahd gay rights, and now we need to fight for 'their' rights, splits black women down the middle. Black men also make less than white men and less than white women. Feminism has no real answers for that fact. We are expected to ignore the discrepancy our men face and just focus on women. We cannot. We have sons and husbands tha face terrible racism and state violence and incarceration. That makes our families much poorer than white families. So no. Black men own nothing. They continue to fight for every scrap.
She should have called fir us tonwork togethef instead of going the ' we did for you, now it's your turn to do for us'. It totally ignores black history. We did for ourselves and eventually we got SOME help. Nobody gave us rights. We took them. Telling people that its your turn makes it seem like the issues of minorities and gays are solved. Work together. No working for the other.
Upward
(115 posts)You're right; it's somewhat of a manipulative thing to do.
And yet, there is truth-telling in it. Arquette may make the call, but I doubt we'll see her do any real leading.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But, as we owe nothing... There will be no manipulation.
Nobody owes for having the same rights as everybody else. We fought for it, marched for it, died for it, and here we are, not even equal yet. We fought for affirmative action and most of that went to white women. We never even think about telling them they owe us. We thought we were all in it together. Equality for all.
Upward
(115 posts)It is something women do so much of. We support others often without being asked and then we're shocked because we expect reciprocation, and too late find out that only happens when someone thought ahead and put a specific deal on the table.
I can understand why people of color and LGBT both have a bone to pick with Miss Patty. But I can also understand her frustration far too well.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We give and give and give and are told we still owe.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Racism was present at the time of the actual events and the filmmakers did not hesitate to include it in Iron Jawed Angels. One scene in particular involved Alice Paul (Hilary Swank) and Ida Wells-Barnett (Adilah Barnes), a prominent African American journalist, and civil rights and women’s rights advocate and leader. The setting was the day of the great Suffrage Parade in Washington, D.C., in 1913. Upon learning that Ida Wells was planning to march as part of the Illinois delegation, Alice Paul told her to march at the back of the parade with other blacks and miscellaneous ethnicities. This was the 1913 equivalent of going to the back of the bus.* Ida Wells acquiesced, but when the parade started she marched instead with her state delegation. The rationale expressed in the film was that the suffrage movement was already under great pressure, so why further antagonize the populace they were striving to enlist? While probably a pragmatic viewpoint at the time, it was clearly not inclusive or visionary.
** 71 years prior to Rosa Park’s historic bus ride, Ida Wells was ordered to give up her seat on a train and move to a “Jim Crow” car. She refused, was forcibly removed, sued the railroad and won a cash award in court. Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the decision.
http://www.cincyworldcinema.org/photos/IJA/Race%20and%20Women's%20Suffrage.pdf
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I had read about this and more. ida B is one of my idols. And she was very out spoken not matter who did not like it.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)This is a particularly interesting discussion (and very strange)
That people seem to deny that this has been happening for about 100 years is pretty sad.
Like many others in this thread, I don't think Arquette meant to be divisive, but the reality is that rights for woman has indeed run on two different tracks, one white and one black.
I don't see why pointing that out and expressing displeasure with it should be a problem. I really appreciate what you are saying, it has opened my mind up even more.
The thing I find really amazing when we talk about white and black and equality, is that the white suffragettes in particular were affluent enough to move progress forward. In other words, they were not poor. The list at the link I provided — imo — is proof that equality for women has two tracks. I think women need to really listen to each other and see that not everyone has the same life experiences when it comes to culture.
Once again, thank you bravenak!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)There has to be a discussion if there is to be a reconciliation. Thanks. This went better than I expected. I got some good responses. That helps me see where the cracks are. I see them now.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)And that movie came out in 2004. It was uncomfortable, but necessary to see and understand that as we strive to progress, progress is uncomfortable.
I'm seeing cracks myself.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'll watch a movie or read a novel and feel the need to look very deeply into something. It started when I read the Color Purple when I was about 7. We had done a unit on black history. I started checking out all the book from the library, one by one. Went through hundreds of books on black history over th next few years. I read and cried and got angry, bitter, frustrated, sad, but then it got easier to deal with the unfairness. It is what it is. Only way to change anything is to talk it to death, is what I got from all of my studying.
I think rather than walking away, its best to keep talking. I'll make my self heard eventually. Once people get past the anger, frustration, sadness, and bitterness at the facts, they will see what I see. And then we get change.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)At least when I was with them. It was all about the 'glass ceiling' for the professional women. Equal pay was the call of the day.
I brought some POC and lesbians to a meeting to explain their needs in the equal rights for women group. All were economically worse off than the majority of the women there, but I thought the principle was the main issue.
The sense of tension and then the dismissal of their problems was clear and I left with the group. I never went back. This was in a large city, but not all may have had anything near that experience.
NOW became to me a rather narrow focus who didn't really believe all women were equal, even though they wanted to be economically equal with men. The women who got uncomfortable had profound advantages over the ones who I felt really needed to be lifted up.
This is part of the division we are talking about here. I knew, as the POC and lesbian women did, that their barriers to equality were much greater than the professional group.
But the silence was deafening. The women who were poorer or less educated were not included. I don't know about Arquette, but I found the entire Oscar performance, and most of these award shows celebrating actors to be clueless at best and narcissistic and destructive at worst. I've come to despise these events.
Once again, some of these folks live in a bubble with walls so thick they can't see what is going on. They are going to see POC's complaints as rude and ugly. Celebrity supporters are often as angry as any sports fan. Which goes back to their privilege, and people don't like them being dissed.
I'd like to parse this out and say that we will just go with Arquette's words and nothing else. Context matters. The lives of people who will never a voice such as the entertainers have, they matter, but are told to shut up and let the privileged enjoy the sound of their own voices.
JMHO.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I agree. I have seen first hand the dismissal and erasure of poc. I think I now realize that I may not fit in with 'feminism'. I'll just be a hypenated person. Black-feminist. I saw quite a few white feminists break it down and show the flaws in wht she said, but I think they will be ignored too.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)because the ERA never passed.
Response to bravenak (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You might end up going through a whole bucket of that corn.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)all of a sudden great supporters of black women, starting threads, about the mean offensive white woman.
it sickens me.
thru history, and listening to a lot of AA and gay women speaking up over the years, i have learned a lot about the issue. in hof we have had many threads about the issue. education is vital. it is those that use it to create an argument, discourse, resentments, divide. that feed it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And I don't think she is mean or the intent was to harm. But we were offended. Not by the comments on stage, but by the comments afterward. We are women, we are black people. We cannot separate from black and just be women. And we do not feel like we owe anything. Words matter.
salin
(48,955 posts)it offers the opportunity to those who will listen, to realize there are still blinders on that need to be removed. It offers the hope that more people will have their voices heard by more people (who may willfully) have removed the blinders.
This goes way back. I recall reading that Frederick Douglas and Susan B. Anthony had at times warm working relations on issues of abolition and feminism, and at other times very cool working (or non-working) relations. As expressed by Raine upthread in the example of Ida B. Wells, there was a tension among early women's rights advocates between working together for civil/human rights and trying not to offend possible allies. I believe there was a big event that Stephen Douglas was invited to address - which was offensive to Frederick Douglas (for good reason!), but the desire of the womens' rights activists trumped the alienation of Black civil rights activists (setting up one of the cold periods between Anthony and Douglas.) [disclaimer: am working from memory - so my details may be off]
Well over one hundred years have passed. It is time for us white folks to take off our blinders, already. We can't reach unity - when we keep holding allies as invisible and/or separate.
Thanks, bravenak, for getting this discussion moving here at the DU.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I for one do not think it is fair to allow my friends here to be oblivious to things that they may not hear about unless someone like me brings them up. The black perspective is missing here. I do not understand the anger level for letting peopke know we found a statement a bit offensive. I find that not talking about it increases th level of division. If word matter when it comes to feminism and we feminists speak out against words that depower women or are sexist, I do not understand why it not not okay for black women to speak out if the are offended. I think that may be one of the biggest problems in feminism. White womn assume the defaul 'woman' role and the movement us geared to what they feel are the biggest priorities. If black women say they have other priorities, we get shut down and called divisive.
Also, the way it was said was reminicent of old times. It's our turn (minorities), we helped you, now you need to help us. That assumes that feminism was instrumental in helping 'black people' get rights. But whose feminism was it that was actually instrumntal in black civil rights? Black feminism. We did most of the work ourselves. The struggle for the female vote had us in the back of the streetcar. We were up front and center in black civil rights. Always black women. Tubman, Truth, Wells, Madame CJ Walker. And we did it while raising families and scrubbing white feminists floors. Don't like the way she said it. Doesn't mean I don't like her.
But, after this thread, I do see where the divisions are. I know my place. Apparently feminism has no place for me. I can accept that. I will always be black. And I will always say what I think, even if it pisses off white feminists. I think most try to understand my pov. Once black woman problems become a part of the feminist platform and we are included in making decisions, then we can come together. The second anyone starts grouping people into race, I go to my place. Black.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Patricia Arquette did a good thing for women's rights no matter how you try to spin it.
She could have talked about ponies and rainbows
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Well, not necessarily in this case, but as for the Internet as a whole? Yes.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Martin Luther King, Jr....................... she was there to speak out........ oh wait Martin Luther King jr didn't mention all humans...time to criticize him
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King, Jr............................... she was not silent
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King, Jr..................... she was not silent
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
Martin Luther King, Jr..................................... she was not silent
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/martin_luther_king_jr_2.html#IX5iZVuj1TIfqLwC.99
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)"It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
Just like that, with one comment backstage, Arquette muddied the golden speech she had made minutes before. She created a divide between what straight white women want and what everyone else wants, and that's exactly the problem with modern feminism.
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8091449/oscars-patricia-arquette-feminism
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)OK I get it... so what? But that's how I took it.
I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water............. she was not silent in the heat of the matter.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Just letting you all know how people of color took her dividing us into groups that she has fought for that need to fight for her.
http://thegrio.com/2015/02/23/patricia-arquette-blacks-gays-white-women/
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Gawd forbid a fucking female blonde Caucasian speak a truth.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)I'm sorry, but I'm one of them.
She gets a Hollywood salary, but speaks for those of us who have been struggling. White black or purple.
At least that's how I see it, and many educated women do, working for garbage pay even with a masters degree In the god forsaken "right to work" southern states..
Not all white women are privileged, many are single Moms and work at horrible jobs in America. Even with a decent education, In 2015.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Women are not exempt.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That's the point some seem to miss.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)fighting against women's rights and civil rights on every front, these truths wouldn't need to be spoken.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)I haven't seen a statement from her yet, just the tweets linked above. I like Arquette and support her. But I also hear how others feel, and those very real feelings should not be invalidated. I hope Arquette seizes the opportunity she has here to make a healing, unifying statement that acknowledges and respects the feelings of others.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Yes!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
TBF
(32,047 posts)was cited as a fine feminist publication.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I saw her being interviewed on the red carpet and I thought she'd had a few pops--she looked like she was feeling no pain. When she got up and did that "Equal pay" thing, I said to myself "DAMN--stand and deliver!!!! Well, good on her! And even more so if she has a buzz on!"
Bottom line--a rising tide lifts all boats--black boats, white boats, LGBT votes, poor boats that are making a shitty minimum wage, and most importantly, black/white/asian/gay WOMEN boats that are getting paid less than their male counterparts. I'm not going to pull her comments apart because I'm pretty certain her heart was in the right place. Here's what she did--she shined an Oscar spotlight on an issue of interest to at least half the population (and likely, more than half). She did a good thing, even if she got a bit "inartful" backstage.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Next time she will know not to say things like, 'now its time for blacks and gays to work for us'
MADem
(135,425 posts)"You owe ME" than "WE all got to stick together."
I wasn't there and I'm not in her head, so sure, I could be wrong about her intent, but I think I might be on to something.
Anything that gets your or my female friends and relations more money in their job is a good thing. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I actually agree with you.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
n2doc
(47,953 posts)She ain't one of them. This kind of divisive "But but she didn't explicitly mention my faction, so she's evil!" crap sets everyone back, except the privileged.
Bunch of attention mongers.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)On the other hand, Meryl Streep's kids probably never had to go bed hungry for lack of money.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)This is a hard truth that certain extreme elements of the internet left have *yet* to understand, though.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)whose children do go to bed hungry for lack of money.
Empathy and compassion are traits that make actors and actresses great. Not all actors and actresses are capable of empathy and compassion, but the greatest ones are. That's why we love them.
Civil rights would not be have progressed even as far as they have (and they have not progressed far enough) were it not for the fact that people who do enjoy civil rights without a struggle feel empathy and compassion and solidarity for those who do not enjoy those rights.
That is why it is so ugly to pick apart the language of someone who is speaking up for civil rights. You cannot have civil rights for this group but not have it for that group. When I as a white person can vote but my neighbor because of his or her color or gender or sexual preference cannot vote or enjoy some other right that I enjoy, then my right is diminished in value.
Theoretically, the 14th and 15th Amendments to our Constitution awarded equal rights including the right to vote to African-Americans long before women had even the right to vote. The reality was of course that to this day the right of people of color to vote is threatened. Still the fact remains that the rights of men of color were historically viewed recognized before those of women regardless of race or ethnicity.
xmas74
(29,674 posts)She's been part of the effort for a national women's history museum for many, many years now. I believe she's donated a tidy sum to that cause alone, along with other causes.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Always finding something to criticize. Always finding the one little flaw.
The author sounds like she's a real joy to be around.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts) pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)There are some very deep feelings involved, and it can be very enlightening to hear the voices of those most affected.
You are a treasure here. 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Love you too. You're punny.
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)I have SO MANY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS, but the bottom line is that this is a conversation we need to have. Desperately need to have, as honestly as possible.
Too many voices are unheard, too many people unseen in our systems and society.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)How's that for "touchy subject"?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They ran from the plantations with us. I have one right here. He always speaks out.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)From this one line backstage...."It is time for us. It is time for women … It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."........the author of this article sums it up and says what Arquette 'really' means is this ......"What Arquette said backstage, and the way many people took her comments, is that people of color and gay people need to drop their causes and struggles and turn their focus to the problem of wage disparity, to the problems that affect her, as a white woman."
It seems to me that Kelsey McKinney, the author of this piece is the ignorant one and not Arquette as she accuses Arquette of being. It gets old to have someone like McKinney dissect every word said and somehow twist it around to further their own dialogue going on in their head.
Arquette called for equality for 'us'. She didn't specify white women.......but McKinney sure inserted that into her imaginary dialogue. To criticize Arquette for a simple statement and somehow make it all about a racial divide by inserting McKinney's own agenda into the Arquette's statement does a disservice to what Arquette was saying. Arquette was advocating for all women......it's a shame that McKinney chose to twist and abuse her words and make it all about getting herself out front and center with a controversial article that as I stated in my reply title..........is full of horseshit.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)BooScout
(10,406 posts)That particular perverted twist all came from McKinney and all those wishing to take something positive (Arquette's speech) and debase to it to something on their own agenda.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I trip off y'all for real.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)I haven't tripped out since the 70's. 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I watched how shocked and angry people get at hearing what black people say. It's like weird that nobody can believe we have the right to be offended if they are not. We must have some evil agenda. No wonder black people don't tell y'all nothin'.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)But it seems you are desperate to have people buy into the agenda you are attempting with this thread. No one ever said you didn't have the right to be offended.........but really....be offended where it counts.........not with some trumped up scenario that Mckinney invented to sell her article.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Chauncey De Vega wrote about it too. Expect more black writers to write about it. Professor Brittany Cooper also spoke on it.
The entire black community is discussing it. We think it counts. Why do you get to decide what counts? We are just as important. See what I mean? So dismissive of our concerns.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)Have a nice day y'all.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)It was obvious that Arquette meant that there are certain causes worth fighting for, and that it is time for all folks to get behind the cause of women's pay equity.
Arquette didn't express herself well, but I could well understand what she meant!
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)Paladin
(28,252 posts)And we wonder why conservatism has made such inroads in this country, while liberalism is less and less of a sociopolitical force. How depressing.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)All terms which should be used sparingly if at all in favor providing someone with whom you disagree a more complete explanation of why you think they are wrong.
In the case of Arquette, a minimum of research into her and it's clear this is a loving and inclusive person.
romanic
(2,841 posts)back to Tumblr where it belongs. Thanks.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)I'm sure Patricia Arquette's heart is in the right place, but what she should have said is,
"And it's time for all the women in America and all the men that love women, to fight for us now.”
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I also, think she was coming from a good place. Just lacked awareness. She will have it now.
ProfessorGAC
(64,995 posts)Totally on board with that. (And, i'm a late 50's white male.)
She meant well, and but was clumsy in the execution. She's smart. She'll figure it out and adapt.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Perhaps they are 'coming from a good place' but the lack of awareness is startling. So far in 2015, 6 trans women of color have been murdered in the US. Not gay men, trans women of color. Calling Alexis her gay brother is not at all charming, nor is it something that should be casually dismissed in a thread about verbiage used in advocacy.
This whole thread is a Straight Privilege Extravaganza.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Certainly not myself. It was a supporter of Patricia who corrected themselves when told the facts by me. I keep up on things like that as a rule.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The sad thing is, back in 2008, a lot of white feminists were ready to brand anyone who did not support Hillary as a sexist, even many who turned out to be women, just women of color. As much as I would really love to think that Hillary learned her lesson in 2008, I turly fear she will double down on it, especially as she and bill encouraged Alison Grims to everythign short of calling Obama that N word to distance herself from him. Grimes failed, Wasserman-Schulz failed, but they are of the class that would need to screw up hard before they got fired as easily as Shirley Sherrod.
tenderfoot
(8,426 posts)Your concern has been duly noted.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I know it doesn't matter what black folks think. It's cool. We're the bad guys if we say anything about anybody. This is funny. Not ha ha either.
tenderfoot
(8,426 posts)Your words are about PROVING that LIBERALS are RACISTS.
And that's all you're doing here.
You couldn't care less about equality for women - all women - which Arquette was referring to.
Have a nice day Amy Holmes.
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)Is Amy Holmes?
We all know who she is.
I'm friends with her outside of DU - and I promise - she's not who you think she is.
Did I miss something? Are you actually my old boy Tucker Carlson?
tenderfoot
(8,426 posts)especially when you take the op into consideration.
She's nitpicking here and it makes me wonder.
BTW? Are you Star Parker?
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)I put my words out there - do you?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125555141
tenderfoot
(8,426 posts)I know you're good people and I apologize for stepping on your toes.
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)I just - we have got to stick together on this! 
I was donating to a woman's legal fund for several years that was attacking this issue and involved at a fund raising level . I'm going to reach out to them. I gave up - much like I gave up on genocide because I thought I was the 'only person' that cared.
It's a relief to see such a PASSIONATE argument about this!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Feb 24, 2015, 08:34 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Why women like Patricia Arquette continue to whitewash Feminism.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026270555
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
The outrage machine is in full swing. Hide this post which is OTT and rude, Arquette spoke to women's rights as a whole and someone promoting it like anything else is just propogating a smear.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 24, 2015, 08:44 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I was just reading this thread and actually agree that some are intentionally "looking for a problem" as someone in thread mentioned. At least in this case. It's called having a chip on your shoulder. HOWEVER, Bravenak is entirely within her rights to post an article on the situation. If you have a personal vendetta against Bravenak but her on ignore. Or hide thread if you can't deal with it. OUTRAGE is what DU is for apparently.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I completely and totally disagree with this framing of her speech, but I can not and will not vote to hide. It's an opinion and quite likely a very valid one that warrants discussion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm favor of discussion. I don't know anything about who is right or wrong or care about Arquette's opinion regarding feminism. I also see smears here everyday.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)If all the perpetually affronted got up and left this place there would be no one left.
betsuni
(25,465 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 24, 2015, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)
"To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of the nation, we have fought for everybody's equal rights."
I don't even know what that means. Like, "We spent two days in labor and gave birth to you and gave up our lives and you can't pick up the phone and call once in a while?"
I haven't given birth to any taxpayer or citizen of this or any nation -- what am I, chopped liver?
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)No one will second guess your words.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Language is a virus (I think that's a song)
djean111
(14,255 posts)agent and her family and her doggie. If I was famous, I don't know that I would talk to any-fucking-body, because there is no space for phrasing anything badly, especially since there are so many different lenses focused on things these days.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You get burned either way… It's a matter of how you handle that "burn". This is why it's good to think before you speak.
You don't know Ms. Arquette any more than I do. Plus, I only played back the video where she recognized women, so I don't know if any of her statements were out the frame of that context….
But, I know what it feels to speak truth to power in the public spotlight. And, if I had a moment of opportunity to recognize women in my industry, or recognize women who have served public office as I have (both served, and have made a point of recognizing others before me), OR... women who have felt the glass ceiling, then the only LESSON I would think worthy is how I might seize the moment.
Let the chips fall where they may. Meanwhile, isn't it good not to be afraid of making "space for phrasing anything"? There is no bad decision, if you are sincere.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Wow. Remember how we had to eat the Heritage Care Plan because "we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"? Many of them are the same ones here bashing Ms. Arquette.
I will say that we have some really cartoonish radicals on DU.
Dang. gonna be suspended gain.
djean111
(14,255 posts)As I am here.
As an aside, I am astounded at all of the uproar, since it seemed to me on Sunday that most people were way too cool to watch such a shallow, meaningless spectacle.
Although - NPH was pretty much shallow and meaningless. Why isn't anybody upset because he jeered at a woman's dress, when she had spoken about her son's suicide minutes before?
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)tweeted the following:
Congrats @PattyArquette! Thx for using your speech to advocate for #EqualPay and for understanding that when women succeed, America succeeds
9:10 PM - 22 Feb 2015
http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/02/23/patricia-arquette-wage-equality-pelosi-obama/
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It looks like it might have been tweeted immediately after what she said AT the Oscars, which I think women in general did think was great. As I understand it, the problem people of color had was only with what she said AFTER the Oscars.
And even then African American women are not a monolithic group. Finding one who doesn't agree doesn't mean others don't have a legitimate concern.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)that African American women are not monolithic in their opinions.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)all this.
btw, where I work Blacks are in the majority. I don't talk a lot at work. Listening has been a revelation in and of itself.
Very interesting dynamic going on.
One administrator has been fired for being racist and now the top two staff of one of the major departments have tendered their resignations. One goes in effect tomorrow. The other is moving up within the corporation and will be staying until she finds her replacement.
Interesting times.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)The staff (estimating here) is about 60% black and 40% white.
The new administrator is a white woman.
The head of dietary is a black woman.
The head of Housekeeping is a black man.
The head of Maintenance is a white man.
The head of Nursing is a white woman.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
snooper2
(30,151 posts)dilby
(2,273 posts)Gay Women, Women of Color and Transgender women, someone is trying to pick her apart as if she is only talking about white women which is bullshit.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)These types of discussions are the really important ones, imo. Thanks for speaking out.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #173)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)And I don't think she meant to be exclusive, I can't deny that white feminists have historically been racially exclusive.
Using standpoint theory, roughly the idea that women experience oppression and objectification in the same manner regardless of race or culture or socio-economic standing, Feminsm made its largest error, and one we are still paying for. It's why black women came up with the term "womanist".
Rather than a knee jerk "yes, but" response, I believe it's inportant to listen to women of color when it comes to responses to situations like this, listen and learn. Movie stars can have a powerful voice, they can be great philanthropists, they can affect culture.
"Whose culture" is a very legitimate concern.
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts) KitSileya
(4,035 posts)But at least she deserves kudos for bringing it up. There were many egregious moments in the ceremony, such as NPH putting Octavia Spencer 'to work', his use of the b-word, John Travolta's pawing on Idina Menzies' face, not to mention rapist Sean Penn's horribly racist joke about Inarritu.
Despite the lack of intersectional understanding in Ms. Arquette's post-stage remarks, at least she used her minute to bring focus to the appaling lack of an ERA in the US. I admire her for that.
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)but I'll be damned if this thread doesn't show she's right, even in 2015, about many of the criticisms she--and Audre Lorde, and Alice Walker, and Gloria Hull, and Barbara Smith, and Adrienne Rich--makes of mainstream feminist thought.
I'm not planning to get deeply involved in this, but there is a reason there are books called "All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us are Brave": it's because of an erasure of African American women, and in hooks' own work, of LGBT people, that haunts these discussions. This is the reason for Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman?" speech, for Rich's "Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Existence," and Lorde's "Sister Outsider." And those are only the titles that come immediately to mind out of a large library in the history of feminist thought that deal with the blind spots within feminism.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I do not think this strain of feminism is for me. The shut up, your being divisive type of feminism.
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)and even had two guests who thought it appropriate to criticize Ms Arquette's backstage remarks. It sort of surprises me that anyone is taking that criticism of her as a personal affront--she herself has attempted to clarify her remarks; if she had it to do over again, I believe even she would say she'd like to have said it better. But rather than using this as a teaching/learning moment, some people are retreating to their corners.
I'm very fortunate that I get to teach feminist theory and African American literature--but one of the obstacles I always face is engaging students in critique of, say, Frederick Douglass, whose vision of citizenship is bound up in patriarchal attitudes. Students sometimes accuse me of being unfair to Douglass for addressing the way he constructs citizenship as synonymous with male privilege, but have their mouths agape when they read Jefferson writing about Phillis Wheatley or albino African Americans. That doesn't mean Douglass is a bad man, or that there isn't much to admire about Jefferson. We all have blind spots, though, and most of us would do well to be jostled out of our complacency of thought. Embracing heterogeneity of thought rather than dismissing it seems a good way to start.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I usually don't mind having it pointed out. I felt like this could be a point of discussion. The feminist movement needs more support, not less. To listen to the concerns of black women could help bring us in. Feminists are very concerned with how words affect women. I'd like to see concern about how words affect black women too.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)I think I recall seeing some figures that showed that we in fact benefited for than African Americans and other people of color. Yet focusing on class and race alone will not solve the issues facing women. Gender has its own role in structuring inequality and when coupled with race means that women of color are most likely to face depressed wages and poverty.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Nobody wants to know and the idea that we were not all gushing pisses people off. Black women realize that black men are making less than white women. And many are in jail making nothing. Black women just cannot divorce ourselves from our blackness for the cause. I just wanted people to be aware of how their words affect different groups. White feminists were mostly okay with what she said backstage it seems. Us, not so much. For a group of women who pay so much attention to words and how they affect women, I think there needs to be awareness of how words affect black women. We may not be the majority, but dammit we're here. We're here. Always been right out in front.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)that we all need to read. The problems faced by African Americans and black men in particular are of a whole different, life threatening dimension. We, meaning white women like me, need to be reminded that it isn't just about us. Please don't let this be the last time you raise the subject.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)My overall impression is, she wants equal rights and equal compensation for ALL women. She didn't say that perfectly and she is certainly no politician. I think in the future, she will frame her comments as I did above.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Nobody is perfect. Things like this are learning experiences and help bring about conversations that we need to have.
ariesgem
(1,634 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 25, 2015, 02:09 AM - Edit history (1)
As a black woman, I never put energy into the feminist movement....they weren't inclusive of black women. While they were fighting for women's rights we were still cleaning their floors. The truth about American society today is that the white female will get a role (job) before the female "person of color" and the white female will get paid more money than the "person of color" female.
I can't ever recall organized feminist groups coming out in support of the mother's of Trayvon or Mike or show how down they are with the #blacklivesmatters movement. Yes I'm for equality for women but the work ain't complete on the civil rights end....
bravenak
(34,648 posts)thanks for summing it up. I don't feel like we should be told as black people that it's her turn and we need to do anything. We already do. We have been working on equality forever. I did not like her saying 'now it's time for you to help us like we helped you'. Felt like the movie The Help.
Number23
(24,544 posts)or supporting Sonia Sotomayor when she was being slimed by the GOP. Or supporting Michelle Obama when the same was happening to her.
I agree with your post completely. And there are large swaths of feminists of color that have been saying these same things for literally DECADES. But for some reason, this type of sentiment is so shocking on DU.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)perhaps because of recent successes with gay marriage and decreasing discrimination, and I recall a lot of grumbling from the lesbian community that gay men weren't doing any heavy lifting for their sisters.
I think she meant well, but, yeah, I see the ignorance in the additional comments. She certainly walks the walk in real life though.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Well, that's good to know. I know practically nothing about this woman.
Hopefully her entitled and baffling comments here won't smear any good works she does in the future.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)which is why I imagined it came from a good place. But I understand the additional comments are WTF.
One angle I do not like, as far as the income thing is when people mock someone who is a huge earner and talks about income equality. I remember there was a top executive in the news and her salary was 30-40% lower than men who'd done the job before. But it was a high salary, and people here were like cry me a river, booo hooo. But she was right to complain- it is not right, not at any level.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Was not Frederick Douglass one of the most consistent male champions of women's rights in the 19th century?! Meanwhile, after the Civil War, many of the middle-to-upper class white feminist and abolitionist allies whom Douglass had previously been working with abandoned the struggle for civil rights for black Americans-often for racist reasons.
When it comes to race (and class) there's some ugly history to the (bourgeois and white elements of the) feminist movement. I'm not saying that there's never been common cause, but there's a disturbing trend for certain voices to be heard above others, even within movements against social and political oppression and marginalization-like feminism.
From Angela Davis' seminal 1981 work, Woman, Race, and Class:
"Resolved. That without expressing any opinion on the proper qualifications for voting, we call attention to the significant facts that in every State there are more women who can read and write than the whole number of illiterate male voters; more white women who can read and write than all negro voters; more American women who can read and write than all foreign voters; so that the enfranchisement of such women would settle the vexed question of rule by illiteracy, whether of home-grown or foreign population."
This resolution cavalierly dismissed the rights of Black and immigrant women along with the rights of their male relations. Moreover, it pointed to a fundamental betrayal of democracy that could no longer be justified by the old expediency argument. Implied in the logic of this resolution was an attack on the working class as a whole and a willingness-whether conscious or not-to make common cause with the new monopoly capitalists whose indiscriminate search for profits knew no human bounds.
In passing the 1893 resolution, the suffragists might as well have announced that if they, as white women of the middle classes and the bourgeoisie, were given the power of the vote, they would rapidly subdue the three main elements of the U.S. working class: Black people, immigrants, and the uneducated native white workers. It was these three groups of people whose labor was exploited and whose lives were sacrificed by the Morgans, Rockefellers, Mellons, Vanderbilts-by the new class of monopoly capitalists who were ruthlessly establishing their industrial empires. They controlled the immigrant workers in the North as well as the former slaves an poor white laborers who were operating the new railroad, mining, and steel industries in the South.
-Davis 1981 pp.115-116.
Thank you, bravenak, for speaking out and for refusing to stay silent. This is an important discussion. I really hope that more people can listen to what you say, instead of having a knee-jerk negative reaction.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I think the more we talk about it the faster we can solve it. I knew they would knee jerk, but somebody has to say something. I wish more white liberals would tak the tim to read black publications unprompted. Just to see what we think and get some insight. Might help with the shock factor when I bring things up.
Chimeradog
(83 posts)I thought it was only interesting part of Oscar ceremony. At least she spoke for those working at BELOW minimum wage in some horrific red states, like Tennessee
last year the discussion was Jolie's see through blouse.
Narcissism and superficiality are used by corp media to distract the masses. I think Americans (many) are waking up and speaking out.
If Hollywood personalities spoke out more at this stage, it is much needed: average people don't have the power of billionaires- Also I haven't watched Oscars since 2010, so she definitely made it a more interesting show. Other than that I didnt read too much into it, I just give her credit for going against the status quo.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The problem was never with what she said onstage.
Chimeradog
(83 posts)to respond. been offline .
I wanted to respond because the article at VOX site seems to infer that it is what "a straight white woman " would say , Arquette, I highly doubt , defines her life through that quote written by a magazine staff writer. verbatim.
So imo the article is just creating controversy....
I avoid most print media and propaganda. The state of tv and celeb culture in America is sickening. I just admire what she voiced at the Oscars. That's all.
At least she isn't defending rethugs and billionaires. Someone needs to speak for us, workers who work for less and have ZERO voice in corporate media these days.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I try to ignore the sensationalism. It seems to be present everywhere. I think she is a nice person.
Thanks. I am a female who is not a single Mom but has experienced the "glass ceiling" b.s. (with 2 advanced degrees)...
I don't like to hate on men, I am female but don't consider myself a 'feminist' per se, only bcs the rwnj's seem to have demonized that particular label. I am for equal pay for all according to ability. And for the abolishing of propaganda and billionaires speaking for Average Americans.
jmo, there's an agenda at play in critiquing her statements In that article. Thank you for listening, I'm new here but been on a diff forum for a decade until my stomach cld no longer take the Cruz shills and outright hatred of women.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)When it starts getting to just attacking the person, Then I know whats going on. I'm usually willing to be reasonable instead of just crazy angry.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Whenever Hollywood stars hold themselves out as the voice of the oppressed, I reach for my gun. It shits me beyond tears, particularly when the bastards do nothing more than snort cocaine off the butt cracks of young Moroccan boys aboard their 200ft yachts for 364 days of the year. Yet we fawn over them for the one day when they make a nice speech at an awards ceremony. Fuck off, they don't get a pass for doing that.
Up against the wall with the lot of them, I say.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)J. Lo is worth $300 Million (and coincidentally, makes more than the male judges on American Idol). Meryl Streep is worth $65 Million. It's just weird watching this unfold from the peanut gallery. Seems more like a bunch of rich, entitled white women being drama queens than a real call for economic fairness.
Ashley Judd is worth $22 Million, but she gets in the trenches - she's gone to India, worked with the poor there, elsewhere, done public service documentaries about sex trafficking and HIV prevention. She even wanted to run for office as a Democrat, but was sidelined by Third Way operatives.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I thought she was a much better candidate than who we got. I hate awards shows. I usually only watch the highlights because I don't feel like watching rich people congradulate each other on how awesome they pretend to be.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)It's a question worth asking, since we are on the subject.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)She made a great speech onstage, and then some poorly phrased off-the-cuff remarks in the offstage interview.
The author of the article writes:
Come on. That's not at all what she said. She never said anything about dropping causes. She never said anything about focusing on white women. She never gave any indication that she didn't think the struggles of gay people or minorities were real. She just won an Oscar playing a struggling single mom. She was emotional and wanted to highlight the economic problems that women face.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)People took from it what they took from it. She told narginalized groups that it's time to fight for her now. They have always been fighting that fight. Nobody did their fighting for them. Had she left it at what sh said onstage, sh would have not gotten a reaction.
I hate the way that when black people say something makes them feel marginalized, they get called divisive or their concerns are dismissed as imaginary. Instead of people listening and making sure to be inclusive. And wish they would stop saying 'we fought for your rights!" Like we just sat around eating bbq while white folks fought for us. Can't just say 'we all need to fight together for equality?"
Why say black people need to fight for us now like we fought for you? What does that mean even? Black people are always being singled out and told how grateful we should be or told how hard others have fougt FOR us. Thought we were in it together. So, whats up with the we fought for your rights shit? We fought for our own rights that we always should have had. Now, people say she was including black women in the 'women' group. Ok. So black men need to fight for women now like we fought for them. Which women do they need to fight for? Who do the most marginalized group of men in America owe? They still make less than white women in many cases. Shoukd we not fight fo them too? One third of them spend time in our racist prison system as targets of the state. Where are all these women fighting for their rights? I know. They are the black women for the most part at home raising their kids on less pay than most other women.
Start grouping people by race and say you did all this for their rights and now they need to do for you, this is the reaction that will happen. P
Now, many will say, she's a feminist, feminist worked for the rights of all women and rights for black people. Now, that is just not true. Feminism has a black white split because of the racism black feminist recieved and still recieve at the hands of white feminists. Way back during sufferage white feminists made black ones march at the back. Ride the back streetcars. Feminism was against the black male vote. So, no. Not true. But the movement certainly claims the work of women that the movement marginalizes everyday. If feminism is all about words mattering and empowering women they fail when it comes to race. Always have. Black women say something about it? Divisive.
Black people don't owe anybody anything for 'fighting' for our rights.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)entirely with you here.
I really don't think Patricia Arquette is the bad guy here, and I don't like that she's being painted as such. I'm not going to defend her backstage comments, I think she would probably agree that they were at the very least poorly worded. But then, I think back to dumb or poorly worded things I've said in my life.
It seems to me that she was just trying to passionately advocate for women's equality. And I'm pretty sure she's on the right side of the gay and minority rights issues also. The thing is, there are enough people, even on DU, who push the whole "wage gap is a myth" line, not to mention "there's no such thing as white privilege" and so on. I mean, we even have a "Men's Group", for eff's sake.
So I think it's unfair, and also counterproductive, to paint Arquette as the "white woman who only cares about white women." She's a white woman who cares about women's issues, and probably cares about other victims of discrimination too, but also probably is more sensitive to the issues that affect her personally, which is a human failing, but can come off as dismissive towards the problems that are faced by others.
I don't disagree with much of your post, and am not minimizing the issues you bring up. There is a tendency on the left to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and I think some of that is happening here.
But maybe I'm wrong.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The wage gap between black men and women is very narrow. This article summs up much of my points. http://www.thefrisky.com/2015-02-24/the-soapbox-heres-why-closing-the-gender-wage-gap-is-a-white-feminist-issue/
Take a look at it and tell me what you think.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First of all, I was not aware that the gender gap for black men vs women was small than for white men vs women. Also, I think Arquette should have stopped digging instead of making inaccurate tweets (and misspelling "affected"
defending her comments. And, obviously, I don't agree with the sentiment that "we helped black and gay people, now it's your turn to help us". For a lot of reasons.
The point I was trying to make was basically this one:
bravenak
(34,648 posts)This is me expanding on the topic. Many of my posts have been directed on issues related to the topic at hand. I never said she was a bad person or that I did not like her. Just said that the comments struck me in many ways, and the article sums up many of the points that I have made here. White feminism vs. Black feminism, erasure, intersectionality and feminism, why black women don't call themselves feminists, the inequality black men still face, making sure people refer to trans women by their current names, not call them 'gay man'. Things of that nature. I posted this mostly as a response to people who think critisizing words is tearing down. I hav not called her any names or tried to tears her down. I am raising awareness about how many black people took her words and why they did so.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)
marym625
(17,997 posts)I am JUST seeing this.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I thought you saw it. 
I tried to use enough emoticons.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I am sure you did. Too funny.
What was I talking about then?
Someone else's post. Probably what made you post this one. 
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Is that Patricia Arquette and all those supporting her, should be telling white women to start working for equal pay. White women vote overwhelmingly R, Davis for example, didn't lose women, she lost white women. Consistently white women (and men, of course) vote against equal pay, while women of color consistently vote for equal pay.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Black people mostly vote D.
I read another one in Salon. http://www.salon.com/2015/02/25/black_americas_hidden_tax_why_this_feminist_of_color_is_going_on_strike/
It was good. I was planning a strike after this anyway.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I am sorry my friend, but I disagree. I am bisexual. I have only dated women for the last decade. I have been a big participant in fighting for equal rights for the LGBT community. I was, therefore, included in her "time to fight for women" remark. And I am not the least bit offended nor do I feel excluded.
All the groups she mentioned have been exclusive, including the civil rights for black people. Including the LGBT movement. None of that is right or good.
But, if we hang on every nuance, on every interpretation of every word, if we take semantics and make it mean more than the intended message, we all lose.
She obviously could have said it better. But it shouldn't be used in such a way as to cause a rift that needn't exist. Take it as it was meant. If someone else had said that, someone Elizabeth Stanton-like, then yeah, take arms against her and I will gladly stand with you. But when someone like Arquette says it, know it's not about us vs them.
We, those of us that are disenfranchised to a greater degree than just women, need to not back away from movements because we have been unwelcome in the past. We need to push our way in and take what's ours.
I am in no way comparing being a white bisexual woman to a black woman. I can hide who I am (though I never would). But when I walk into a job interview, no one knows my sexuality and assumes I am straight. You cannot hide your blackness (nor would you want to) and you are immediately discounted by so very many assholes that hold some power. I know this.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And it is perfectly okay to disagree with me. See, I don't know her or have really followed her career very much. I tend to listen to the words and take them as written. She has responded to the criticism.
I don't see her as causing a rift as much as helping us see the rift that was already there more clearly. It's not about her, per se. Her words, were inarticulate. We were all right there with her until she got to the end. It was more of a dissapointment to us than anger inducing. And yes, black men did feel a bit slighted since they also have wage inequality compared to white women. We notice because we are affected by it extremely. Now it's time to fight for us. Fighting had been all we have ever been doing, minorities and gays. It's our lives everyday we wake up different than the standard.
I see it as less about her and more about showing the blind spots in her statements and starting a conversation.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I can see that. I have not seen too much about the backlash. Just what I have seen seems to be aimed at her at not something inherently wrong with the movements themselves.
Power to the People!
Back to work for me
KMOD
(7,906 posts)and (2) Democratic voters, to vote in the next election."
If the above made you cringe, then the point of this thread has been made.
Just as Democratic voters are American voters and should not be included as a subgroup, all the gay people and people of color should not have been a subgroup either, as shown below.
"It’s time for (1) all the women in America, (2) the men who love women and (3)all the gay people and (4)people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now."
Yes, we all know that Patricia Arquette did not mean harm, and just did a sloppy job in stating her thoughts. I can see though how it can be insulting.
If this discussion can get people talking and thinking, well perhaps some small progress can be made. Baby steps, that's how we get everywhere.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We have real Americans. Then we have us. Democrats. That made me not be able to stand Palin, even though she was my governor and had not been terrible at that point. She had just taxed the oil companies. A republican taxed the oil companies. Then she lost her mind saying crazy shit and being a dogwhistler.
Lucky for us Patricia is NOT a republican. I can safely say that what she said was a minor annoyance compared to the right.
I think alot of good conversation will come from this. We can stop discussing things only with our own demographic and include the voices of all affected and include the issues of justice along with inequality.
Bettie
(16,089 posts)since whatever they say is going to be interpreted in a negative way.
Why is there always an assumption of malice when people speak?
romanic
(2,841 posts)and then have "discussions" so they can hear themselves talk. :I
Bettie
(16,089 posts)as not being offensive, at least purposefully offensive.
Honestly, I'm afraid to say anything these days, since the assumption seems to be that anything said is meant to be malicious and demeaning to someone else.
Most of the time, there is no malice there. No wish to denigrate anyone.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)
I just had something like that happen to me today, all because I put the word "white" in quotation marks.....even though I've done that plenty of times when referring to myself and nobody said a thing. Honestly, some days, stuff like that makes me wonder what in the heck is wrong with this place.
Bettie
(16,089 posts)you try to say something and if you have one word that can be parsed as negative in some way, it becomes a "thing".
There is no understanding of good intention, only the assumption that you are somehow trying to offend.
I try to be a decent person, but I'm human. I have my biases and my blind spots, but I seldom set out to hurt or offend anyone.
Glad to know someone understands that.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)IMO, it never hurts to reach out to folks, especially if one has been in the same boat they were.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)What did she say or forget to say? Everything I've read said that she wants women to get equal pay for film roles. How did she offend anyone with that?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)This thread. I thought it was over.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)That's cool though. I've started OPs that I got tired of too.
