HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » TeeYiYi » Journal
Page: 1

TeeYiYi

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 8,027

Journal Archives

She asked...

...that ALL activists (to include gay activists and black activists) add the fight for women's rights to their activism dockets. (You don't have to be gay or black to be involved in the fight for equality and basic human rights.)

If someone hearing Patricia Arquette's comment is already fighting for women's equality then her backstage comment doesn't apply to them. Her request for solidarity only applies to those people who are not already on board with equality for women, and activists with a narrow purview of which causes are important enough to fight for.

Black women are already included in Patricia Arquette's "us" and "we" category of "all women" by virtue of their gender. Unless there are black women who've been actively campaigning against equality for women, the call for solidarity by Patricia Arquette does not apply to them, since they are already "us." "That we've all fought for"… "that we've" includes black feminists. "…to fight for us now"… "us" includes ALL women of every stripe and hue.

Her initial call for equal wages for women, while onstage, sets the parameters for deciphering additional comments on the same topic backstage. If she hadn't already established intent with her first comment, then her backstage comment might be open to interpretation…but she did, and it isn't.

Without the first comment, I can see how the second comment might be misconstrued, but we DO have the first comment which sets the rules by which the second comment is to be judged. Anyone not understanding the thrust of the backstage comment need look no further than the onstage comment to correctly decipher and parse intent.

She didn't demand anything. She merely requested solidarity from those who are already inclined toward activism. She requested support in the fight for women's rights. She didn't qualify that statement by saying "white women's rights," she said, "all women's rights" regardless of straight, gay, black or white. Her fight is for wage equality for ALL women, period.

She's asking that ALL people join in the fight for women's equality. If you're already on board, then her words were not directed at you. But, if you are female, her goal for women's equality is meant to benefit YOU, regardless of color or sexual propensity.

She didn't imply that other oppressed groups have "won their victories." She didn't say "you owe us." That's you projecting.

She's fighting for equality for ALL women, including you, while you're doing nothing but tear her down for her efforts.

You might be the one that needs to take a step back and reevaluate.

TYY

Patricia Arquette said "women." She didn't say "white women."

Why is the internet re-framing Patricia Arquette's plea for equality for ALL women by suggesting that she somehow excluded LGBTQ women and women of color?

She didn't do that. She didn't marginalize gay women and women of color to the exclusion of straight white women. She spoke on behalf of ALL women. She asked that other oppressed groups join in the fight for women's equality.

She's not a racist. She isn't a homophobe. She didn't say "white women only" when referring to wage disparity between men and women.

I am sincerely at a loss as to why Patricia Arquette's words have been twisted and skewed into a huge morass of cognitive dissonance and challenged perception.

TYY
Go to Page: 1