Discussion for article #233610
I essentially agree with the author’s look at the history of feminism in America, and I agree that Patricia Arquette didn’t deal with that history in a suitably academic way. However, it seems ridiculous to apply such stringent expectations to a one-minute shout-out by an excited winner in an arts competition ceremony. This type of overly intricate, too-correct-for-the-real-world, supposedly left wing analyses of nearly anything and everything said by anyone, anywhere, at any time have become far too common on lefty websites. These ongoing, hair-splitting critiques of people who are willing to espouse progressive causes in the face of a conservative mainstream culture are not only too eagerly nitpicky, they only help to cause “intramural” pissing contests in a political movement that needs to be spreading farther and wider into the culture – not wasting time by knifing its own allies in the back over individual variations of correctness. I urge lefties to build a broad coalition instead of spending so much time second-guessing every vaguely progressive statement made in public. At least remain clear-headed enough to realize who’s essentially on your side and who isn’t.
16 Likes
I’ve always heard that the only constant in life is change but I think another is that no matter what you do some one will find fault.
6 Likes
Perfectly put. His comment is typical of the traditional left circular firing squad. The left tends to do this because it has not real effective movement or orgniazations to bring about change. The only change, in this view, is through the text via websites.
4 Likes
No, dear. It wasn’t the one-minute shout out, it was the post-speech musings that showed what she REALLY thinks. Arquette doesn’t understand the overlapping groups and issues. She just thinks its now time for everyone to fight for white women’s issues. Believe me, black feminists know that in any discussion of feminism the word “white” is unexpressed.
7 Likes
No. She put it out there and wanted to become the new face of feminism…was blatantly using her moment to declare herself a spokeswoman for the cause etc. It was her responsibility to do so accurately and knowledgeably. Otherwise, she should have just STFU and accepted her award graciously, sat the fuck back down and avoided the whole blatant use of some social issue to self-aggrandize. I can’t stand the political activism snippets in Oscar speeches. Granted, I can’t stand the Oscars, period, not in any way, shape or form, and I’ve yet to see a single acceptance speech that didn’t make me want to wrap the mic stand around the person’s head…ever…but the whole “here’s my shoutout to my pet issue that I’m suddenly the spokesperson for now” thing is especially odious to me. It’s just smacks of their self-importance that they engage in such buffoonery when you don’t here a peep out of them on the issue the other 31,535,940 seconds of the year.
4 Likes
Thanks for the comments, all. To be clear, I’m not asking Arquette to stop talking about or moving for activism on this, in any sense. Quite the opposite–I’m arguing that there are ways to talk about it that can build connection and collaboration across groups, and ways not to. And that there are vital, often forgotten histories for both of those trends. So I think it’s important to recognize how and when we’re talking in one way or another, and to push for the more meaningful and productive versions–not in one second snippets, perhaps, but in our ongoing conversations.
Thanks,
Ben
5 Likes
I suspect the moment she opened her mouth she knew she’d regret it and here it is. Her statements were a personal recollection of what she as a working woman and mostly single mother has been though, her up and down career, and while she’ll never get awards for being a sociologist and never be named spokesperson for a movement she took advantage of her few minutes in front of an audience, and a dwindling one at that.
3 Likes
And thusly the left’s nitpicky intramural pissing contest goes on. . . .
2 Likes
Well said. Sounds like the author may have an axe to grind
Says the pot full of piss. Unless you aren’t of the left and are just trolling.
Those who can’t take constructive criticism aren’t serious to begin with. “Activists” who are unwilling to appreciate the history, needs and views of others are not capable of building a coalition. You suffer from Patricia Arquette Syndrome. You are clueless. You think racism and classism in the feminist, LGBT and Civil Rights community is academic. That shit is real to people who feel it everyday. Having it brushed aside by a supposed ally shows that you are no friend of mine. You can’t build coalitions through disrespect in a field of endeavor where respect is a key item being fought for.
3 Likes
I don’t have any problem with what she said, onstage or backstage. The title of this post itself separates gender from race (“feminism’s racist history” assumes that when we say feminist we mean white; with this head TPM undermines the point of the article and perpetuates the mistake the author thinks he’s correcting). The truth is that the struggle for racial equality has never given women’s rights an equal priority or seriously considered the two issues inseparable, in spite of the efforts of some men and women within those movements. And is she out of touch in asking for gay support, or is there already a movement of gay men fighting for wage equality and equal rights for women? If so, please let me know what it’s called so I can join.
5 Likes
Whoa! whoa! whoa! Before the 15th amendment many women regarded the fight for women’s suffrage alongside the fight for the emancipation of black slaves. They were quite right to be disappointed when the amendment was crafted to divide the movement. This bit of political cynicism negatively impacted the realization of both dreams.
2 Likes
In truth, and at the risk of getting flamed, could not one write a factual article titled “The Civil Right’s Movement’s Sexist History–And Its Triumphs”? Unfortunately, rights movements often have limited energy and momentum and choices are made. Feminism has been laden with homophobia as well. Sometime these choices are made with deliberate animus and sometimes out of thoughtless expediency and sometimes outright desperation.
It is a fact that when this lesbian asks gay men to get involved in women’s rights issues the answer is usually “only if one of the prominent LGBT rights organizations is involved.” In other words, mostly the sound of crickets. Yet lesbians set aside the entirety of the momentum of lesbian rights and their contribution to the women’s rights movement to put shoulder to grindstone when the AIDS epidemic leveled our brethren.
So I feel what Arquette meant to say, though she didn’t articulate it well. When will those we have worked for step up for us as a group? I have long stopped asking - I’m too jaded. At least Arquette is poking the silent who take women’s help in their efforts and then are not taking calls when it’s time to give a f*ck for women’s equal pay efforts.
The set of women crosses all movements and all movements insist that they are all deserving of equality under the law. And yet there is no Equal Rights Amendment forty effing years later.
2 Likes
What a pathetic article this is.
I guess it’s really important for this author to undermine any positive impact that Patricia Arquette’s speech might have. How sad.
Oh right, she didn’t, in her 1-minute acceptance speech, find time to mention the fact that women in the 19th century were also racist.
Get over yourself! Get a sense of perspective!
2 Likes
How is that “too correct for the real world?” She outright stated that the women’ rights movement fought for others when it hadn’t, accused other movements of ignoring women’ issues when they hadn’t, and implied that all the other groups had received rights first when women received most rights first (not to mention how they were never subject to the biggest threats, like lynching). That’s called being wrong.
2 Likes
Except for that long list of major figures and organizations from black rights movements supporting the suffragist and feminist movements, compared to the high-profile, central feminist organizations and figures actively fighting rights for blacks right in the article.
Why do I suspect that commentators would not be grouping up to claim “nit-picking” to an article criticizing someone saying that the feminist movement was antisemitic. It’s quite clear that most commenters here are just coming in to defend their golden calf and are unwilling to hear any suggestion of flaw.
Surely I’m not the only person who regrets that on the left we’re overloaded with those who would rather form a circular firing squad than focus on those who truly oppose progress. This insistence on an impossible degree of purity is worthy of the worst of evangelical wingnuttery, and should find no place among those committed to progress. Yet TPM, DailyKOS, Salon, HuffPost are increasingly filled with articles in which those from one school of leftist ideological purity or another undercut others who are, broadly speaking, on the same side.
Arquette was asking progressives to devote ourselves to the broad spectrum that includes women’s rights. Then we get articles like this that seek to shatter the spectrum, so that divided, we may fail. Please, stop it!
3 Likes
And let’s be honest here, if someone at the Oscars had said that we’d been fighting for the rights of rich shiksas/WASP women and should start fighting for the rights of Jews, people would be losing their minds. Everyone’s just mad at this article because it’s pointing out that their golden calf lacks divinity.