Patricia Arquette’s Spectacular Intersectionality Fail


I’d already abandoned the Oscars last night when my phone started pinging to tell me that a lot of people were retweeting the same thing: Patricia Arquette had just won an Oscar for what I am given to understand was an extremely powerful performance in Boyhood, and during her on-stage acceptance speech she demanded “wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.”

And lo the Internet did start disseminating a multitude of glorious GIFs of Meryl Streep and Jennifer Lopez verily losing their joyous shit over Arquette’s statement.

Well, that’s a nice thing to say, I reckoned. Like, I don’t know that I’m gonna build a Patricia Arquette shrine in my house or anything, but hey, way to go lady. I wish saying “women don’t deserve to be paid less than men” wasn’t treated like some kind of mind-bending act of bravery, but here we are.

Anyway, something about Arquette’s jam didn’t sit right with me, and I’m not gonna try to argue that I’m psychic, but the thing that didn’t sit right didn’t take too long for Arquette to articulate herself, backstage, while talking to the press.

Here’s what she said:

It’s time for women. Equal means equal. The truth is the older women get, the less money they make. The highest percentage of children living in poverty are in female-headed households. It’s inexcusable that we go around the world and we talk about equal rights for women in other countries and we don’t. One of those superior court justices said two years ago in a law speech at a university that we don’t have equal rights for women in America and we don’t because when they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t intend it for women. So the truth is even though we sort of feel like we have equal rights in America right under the surface there are huge issues at play that really do affect women. It’s time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women and all the gay people and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.

There are four groups of people who exist in this speech. There are “women,” and there are “men that love women,” and there are “the gay people,” and “people of color.”

That’s pretty bad in and of itself. Arquette thoroughly erases gay women and women of color and all intersecting iterations of those identities by creating these independent identity groups as if they do not overlap—as if, ahem, “all the women are white, all the blacks are men.”

But Arquette goes on to do even worse, which is to demand that “gay people” and “people of color” fight for “us,” a group that Arquette has specifically identified as non-gay and not of color—as very specifically straight and white and “woman.”

If you don’t see why this framing is a problem, I’m here to help. On Twitter, the brilliant Brittney Cooper suggested people who don’t get it #AskAWhiteFeminist instead of demanding that women of color explain, again, why this shit is terrible. So I’m going to try.

Let’s start with the most basic of basics: White women, as a group, do experience stark wage disparities, but the gap between the earnings of white women and white men is smaller than it is for any other group besides Asian-American folks. That means white women as a whole do better in terms of wage equality than almost any other group. Got it?

Now let’s break it down:

  • Some women are not white, and some women are not straight. People’s multifaceted identities and embodiments in the world are not separate from their womanhood or their personhood or their humanity. This is the basis of what’s called “intersectionality,” which is more or less the thing where you do exactly the opposite of what Patricia Arquette did on Sunday night—you acknowledge that people don’t stop being gay, or a woman, or whatever just because they’re not white.
  • White ladies aren’t the wage-equalest, but they’re closer to white dudes in terms of their earnings than are Hispanic, Native, or Black women or even most men of color. To demand, as Arquette did, that gay people, who are also more likely to be fired because of their sexual identity or orientation, and people of color “fight for” straight white women erases the fact that straight white women, in fact, are better situated to lift up their workplace colleagues of color than the other way around.
  • Homophobia, transphobia, and racism are alive and well today, February 23, 2015! Straight white women didn’t end homophobia and racism back in the day. In fact, trans women of color are especially likely, in the year of our lord right fucking now in 2015, to be targets of violence. And even if straight white women had ended racism and homophobia and transphobia—and they emphatically have not—it sure as hell doesn’t mean that “gay people” and “people of color” owe them some sort of backsies for doing, like, the very most basic thing that a human being can do, which is treat other human beings like human beings.
  • It is not divisive to point out that straight white women are doing better than their sisters and brothers of color and to demand that white women start acknowledging that fact instead of demanding that less-privileged people “fight for” them. If you’ll recall, the person who actually started dividing people into groups here was Patricia Arquette, who drew a not-at-all unclear line between “us” (ladies like Patricia Arquette) and “gay people” and “people of color.” Let me repeat that: There’s “us,” “gay people,” and “people of color.” If you think Arquette needed to have said “white women” instead of “us” to make it clear that she was talking about “white women,” you need to get your television set adjusted.

White women: let’s not go all “Je Suis Patricia Arquette” on this shit. Let’s listen to people who know better than we do about what it’s like to be a non-white or non-straight or a non-white non-straight person who is asked, from one of the world’s most prominent media platforms, to “fight” for someone who already has so, so much more.

Don’t play the “It’s not the oppression Olympics!” record, the “Stop being so angry and divisive!” record. It is the favorite album of people who want to act like doors don’t close behind straight white women after they’ve walked through them.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact press@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Andrea Grimes on twitter: @andreagrimes

  • Snexas

    I didn’t take her quote the same way you did at all. To me when she was calling out the other groups I didn’t see her saying that there are no women in those groups. I see no reason to be angry with her for this. She has a huge platform & all she’s doing is suggesting equal rights for all women. Can’t we just say “women” as a group anymore? Where’s the solidarity?

    • kugolik

      Even if she wasn’t erasing them, how do you defend this comment? >> “It’s time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women and all the gay people and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.”

      • Snexas

        Why would I have to defend that comment? I didn’t take it the same way you obviously do. Why is it bad to suggest that all oppressed people fight together for equality?

        • kugolik

          That’s bad because it assumes that’s not already happening. It assumes that it’s somehow gay people and POC’s responsibility to advocate for white women which….no. She just needs to check her privilege. I think it’s great that she brought this up, but I just don’t get why she had to phrase it in a way that made a lot of people of color and non-hetero people feel pretty terrible. That doesn’t mean it was her intent to make them feel terrible, but it is the impact. So if I could talk to her, I’d suggest she try to think more intersectionally and, as you said, about solidarity. She’s not in solidarity with women of color or gay people if she phrases things as if they owe all other women something. I know you didn’t read it that way, but it is still a way it could be read, the feelings it creates are still valid.

          • StubbornThing

            Why would people of color and LGBT folks feel terrible? And, she’s not saying they owe anyone anything? She’s saying, ‘let’s ALL work together towards equality’, not that anyone has to do something because of something that was done for them. Reading it any other way is being over-sensitive. Sorry.

          • kugolik

            That’s cute that you think you make the rules of sensitivity. Allow me to have my own thoughts, K? Thanks.

          • StubbornThing

            Said you’re wrong, not that you can’t have your own thoughts, K?

          • Guest

            How is this… it is time for everyone to fight for women’s pay equality, including all men fighting as well, because it ultimately helps everyone. But if you thing she meant anything derogatory, or deliberately trying to leave someone out, I think YOU may have the chip on your shoulder. I am thankful she brought up ANY thing political, instead of thanking everyone but her third cousin twice-removed…

          • StubbornThing

            Not sure if meant to send this to me, because I agree with you. I don’t think she meant anything derogatory at all.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            What if they appear formulaic or foggy?

          • bomber

            Then you should do the same for others. Pretty simple.

          • kugolik

            I haven’t told anyone else how to think. Haven’t said anyone else was “wrong” or “too sensitive.” Just been sharing my own opinion.

          • bomber

            No, you’ve just been telling us what PA not only thought but meant. Rather telepathetic (coined by a good gay friend of mine).

          • Snexas

            No, you’re reading into that she’s making that assumption. Not everyone reads her quote that way.

          • kugolik

            So it can’t be read any differently than you have read it?

          • Snexas

            No, I’m saying different people can read it differently. You’re the one who seems to be claiming it can only be read one way. Since I’m not Patricia Arquette, obviously I can’t be 100% sure she wasn’t trying to offend people of color, gays or trans people.

          • kugolik

            Actually, I never said that. You told me at least two people disagree with me, I said OK. You asked a question, I answered it with what I feel is the correct answer. I literally said “I know you didn’t read it that way, but it is still a way it could be read, the feelings it creates are still valid.” Really not sure what you want from me.

          • bomber

            OK, you win can you move on now?

          • everythingl

            We read her words. She said that gay ppl and people of color owe it to ppl like her to fight on her behavior. What is all this context that you want to believe is missing? Her words are quite clear.

          • Snexas

            I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. All I’m saying is that what you think is clear is obviously not so since there are people of many different types who disagree with you. It doesn’t mean that I’m right & you’re wrong. It just means there is more than one opinion out there.

          • bomber

            You read the reporters words reporting on an emotional, not prepared comment by a probably tipsy PA.

          • Andrew Paul Wood

            The bit where she specifies white women.

          • Snexas

            She said those groups “owe it to people like her”? Really? Please show me that quote. Nope, I can’t find that quote anywhere. You’re twisting her words.

          • Bandita

            I’m pretty sure that is why we are called minorities. We are not the power majority. Many minorities of color do not share the predominant white majority view that is being pushed. PAs comments offended many people but instead of listening and trying understand why, the people who felt invalidated by her comments are now being invalidated here and elsewhere, being told that their views aren’t educated, well-thought out, divisive etc. we are allowed to feel how we feel and no matter how much you in the majority fight us, we are entitled to our views and feelings. I am not a woman first and then a minority. It’s not a top down existence. They intersect, meaning my female struggles are different than a white woman’s female struggles. We can all fight for equality but to suggest that minorities are not feminists is absurd. Telling us what to do and what to think is offensive. You don’t have any authority over our thoughts or experience and it’s pretty evident from this thread that many feminists would rather we minority feminists jus shut up and let them control the narrative.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            God… this i just painful to read.

          • bomber

            Please take some responsibility for your interpretation of her statement. Better yet, contact her for a follow-up to clarify her meaning. Posted by a lesbian.

          • kugolik

            I don’t understand what that means – does it mean “please don’t assume Arquette meant this the way you interpreted it”? If so, sure, I don’t think she had any negative intent at all. I take full responsibility for my own thoughts.

          • bomber

            My post was pretty simple; I believe you understood what I meant.

          • Emmala Sparks Henry

            This thread and the negativity suggests we are too busy back biting each other for petty semantics .

          • SophieCT

            It did not make “a lot of people of color and non-hetero people feel pretty terrible.” Only the ones who chose to interpret it narrowly.

            I am non-hetero and I was not offended. What a great idea you all have: subvert the message so nothing ever gets done.

          • bomber

            When you have to use “a lot” in your argument you begin to lose credibility.

          • SophieCT

            Says who? For the record, I didn’t use “a lot” the person I quoted did. (See the quotes?)

          • Andrew Paul Wood

            Please do point out where the word “white” passed Arquette’s lips? I think that would be very important for us to know.

        • everythingl

          You’re essentially saying “I choose NOT to hear you or trust your beliefs and experiences.” Then you wonder why people aren’t rushing to fight “with” ppl who think like you? Completely tone deaf, you’re being right now.

          • bomber

            And you don’t seem to trust other’s opinions much either. What a bunch of senseless bickering which only separates us instead of us uniting for all civil rights issues. We’ll never get anywhere like this…smh

        • bomber

          It’s not; it’s the only way to move forward. We have been fed a steady diet of hate, fear and divisiveness for generations, keeping one group against another, which keeps all of us from moving forward. Pretty effective strategy is it not? Is ANYONE’S civil rights issues more important than any other’s? I think not but too bad Martin Luther King is no longer with us or we could ask him.

      • StubbornThing

        Damn, some people will find fought in anything. Asking people to fight for equality has somehow become a bad thing.

        Maybe the better question is, why are you offended by that comment?

        • kugolik

          I think this post explains pretty well why this is offensive.

          • Snexas

            Well there are at least two people who disagree with you.

          • kugolik

            OK.

          • kneelbeforetigers

            Well then, here’s one who definitely disagrees with you *hand firmly in the air*. As a WOC, I found PA’s BACKSTAGE comments laughably offensive and sad, as her tone makes it sound like the mainstream women’s movement has sometime in its history taken a stand in favor for “The Other.” History book moment: IT HAS NOT.

          • SophieCT

            Indeed it has. While Audre Lourde and Pat Parker were dying of cancer, and overwhelming number of Lesbians were working with the Gay Men’s Health Crisis to fight AIDS. That’s what Arquette is talking about.

          • bomber

            Absolutely. As one who lived in SF at that time I suggest non lesbians watch “The Life and Times of Harvey Milk”. In it you will hear a leader of the male gay community comment on how lesbians weren’t accepted by the gay community in SF until they became the caretakers of the men with AIDS. It was true, I was there and I personsonally think they still don’t speak out much about women’s rights. So, we women need to stand up for ourselves, it’s past time.

          • Snexas

            Good for you for having an opinion. We all have them. It doesn’t mean any one of us is right.

          • Snexas

            Also, I know this is anecdotal evidence & doesn’t mean the general population feels the same, but I had a gay friend, friends of color & a trans friend repost her comment in support last night. Obviously there are many types of women who didn’t find it offensive.

          • Duke

            All gay people and people of color have an opinion, however, it’s important that when you use those people to validate an idea, those people are critical thinkers. Not all gay people or people of color are critical thinkers. Besides, PA isn’t the first white woman to voice this opinion. It’s sadly a common opinion among white women who just don’t get it.

          • Snexas

            Wow, did you really not read the first words in my comment. “I know this is anecdotal evidence”?

            Also, I’ll be sure to tell my friends you think they’re not critical thinkers. You are very full of yourself making assumptions about people you don’t even know.

          • Duke

            It’s not about anecdotal evidence. You could poll tens of thousands of gay people and people of color and get the same opinion, however, if they aren’t critical thinkers, it can’t be used to counter the very well thought out idea in this article. Keep in mind there’s a long tradition of using a couple of random, less than informed black people, like Charles Barkley, to discredit the greatest thinkers in the black community. It’s a tool the dominate community likes to pull out on minorities in general. And frankly it’s not a good look. I’m sure this will upset/annoy you, but please take the information and consider it for a while before responding. Peace.

          • Snexas

            Ending your comment with the word “peace” doesn’t make your comment any less presumptive.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            Duke, So a critical thinker is just a person who agrees with you… hmmm… allow me to laugh.

          • Duke

            No, the article presents the perfect example of thinking critically. Btw, you sound angry. Why do I make you angry?

          • bomber

            Good deflection, but little substance.

          • Duke

            There’s no need to. That’s the point. Well informed and critically thought out arguments stand on their own. They don’t need consensus. Having an opinion doesn’t mean that person’s opinion matters – not when it comes to getting down to the truth.

          • bomber

            Those that agree or disagree both apply, but the fallacy of your premise is you give yourself the role of judge as to what critical thinking is. I could just as easily define your arguments as not and defend it ad nauseum. Easily done. An old trick of debate teams.

          • Duke

            What are you even arguing? Please tell me? I’ve pretty much spent my entire time here saying that critical thinking trumps opinions, when it comes to figuring something out. Are you arguing that?

          • bomber

            What do you not understandunderstand about this: “… the fallacy of your premise is you give yourself the role of judge as to what critical thinking is.” ?

          • Duke

            A simple education allows anyone to judge whether or not an argument is reasoned and involved. But you already knew that answer. You’re working too hard to try to dominate me – not challenge me – but dominate me. It’s lame. I’m done.

          • bomber

            I did challenge you and I did well in expository composition in school so I understand your method of argument, which is what I challenged. Apparently you aren’t the critical thinker I thought you were. Sorry, my mistake.

          • Duke

            You’re arguing just to argue. You created an argument for me, then proceeded to argue against it. It helps if you argue against something I actually said. Pick something, but please let it be something I said. I believe this thread started with me saying that not every person thinks critically about issues. So let’s start there. Do you agree or disagree?

          • bomber

            Are you telling me what I’m doing or are you asking?
            You defined the article as critical thinking and have implied in several responses that those who have challenged the article have a lack thereof. I challenged you on you being the one who decides what critical thinking is. You then used the tactic of beginning your response as anyone with a little education would be able to define and recognize critical thinking which implies if I don’t (or had to ask) I’m not a critical thinker. With me so far? You insult my intelligence and my ability to notice a veiled barb. Bottom line for me?: I don’t think you really like to be challenged, do you? I mean really, do you? BTW, I thought you were done.

          • Duke

            See, that’s the problem. You’re personal lens is distorting reality. You’re way off. You should read the entire exchange then come back to me. My reference to critical thinking was to Snexas’ mention of her friends’ opinion. I said that not all aren’t critical thinkers. I later said that the article used critical thinking to come to it’s conclusion. The proof of that is in the article’s well structured argument, not what PA really meant or was trying to say. So, stop it! Stop with all the snarky, combative BS. You’re too old for this (yes, I figured out your general age based on your other comments). Challenging me is fine. You just have to challenge me on something I actually said.

          • Snexas

            Stop being a mansplainer.

          • Duke

            What the hell…

          • Lance Monotone

            Nice try @disqus_und96JcMXw:disqus. It’s not you. I tried to follow their logic but ended up thoroughly puzzled by their inexplicable rudeness to you for voicing your obviously valid opinion. You were admirably polite and reasonable for much longer than I would have been. And wth is a ‘mansplainer’? Is that a feminist term, meant to build bridges and promote understanding? Needlessly combative.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            If you were a critical thinker you wouldn’t say such a silly things as “getting down to the truth”… seriously.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            I am getting irritated, not angry, from hearing people caught in their own discourses claiming to be thinking critically.

          • bomber

            AKA, circular logic…

          • Peggy Smith

            Duke – that article is nothing but p.c. and or, intersectionality tripe to jump on PA, just b/c she is a white feminist and made a statement of truth. This blog has nothing to do with critical thinking at all. The article/blog is a judgement being thrown at a PA who made a truthful racial statement albeit, NOT A RACIST ONE. There is a difference. Now, let’s marinate and critical think/discuss on that a while . . .

          • bomber

            Do I have to agree with the article to be defined by you as a “critical thinker”? Interesting concept.

          • lwojo

            Just because someone isn’t a critical thinker doesn’t stop them from voicing their opinions, voting, being racist or sexist. You cannot discount ignorant people to make your point, because they will never go away.

          • Cactus

            Sadly, you are very correct.

          • LewisHenry

            PA did not specifically identify or erase any group of people as this article says. Just because she did not go through a litany of all of the oppressed and marginalized people who have ever and will ever exist does not mean she is erasing anyone. I would say that this authors opinion isn’t any more or any less valid than anyone else’s. And I would say that the “critical thinking” done by this author is extremely flawed.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            Of course you get it? I mean I was just reading comments on the Cosby affair and most comments were from black men defending Cosby. These men were also all against police violence against black men in the context of the #blacklives matter movement. When they referred to the women accusing Cosby, there was all kind of misogyny “bitches”, “whores”. I have never heard a feminist do anything but support the struggles of POC (and I am hispanic) but I too often see men of colour who leave a lot to be desired in terms of solidarity with women.

          • Duke

            So, you agree with me. Those men are not thinking critically and shouldn’t be used as proof of something like Cosby’s innocence. Good. We’re on the same page. Yeah, the arguments of those blindly defending Cosby seemed more emotional than rational to me as well. As for the existence of white feminist who don’t support POC, or loosely lump themselves in the same category, I’ve seen plenty.

          • Heather Bailey

            There are definitely white female who do not support POC or transgender or homosexual people. Unfortunately.

          • bomber

            That is true. And, there are definitely black and brown women who don’t support queers ( meant to be harsh) like me, your point?

          • Heather Bailey

            You said you’ve never heard of feminist that don’t support POC. My point is that there are.

            So why don’t you support homosexuals? It baffles me when an oppressed person discriminate against a different group of oppressed people.

            By the way, I don’t think it’s necessary to be purposely derogatory “queers (meant to be harsh)” and be so proud of it when you are. You seem to want to be taken seriously. That’s not the way to achieve your goal.

          • bomber

            Please show me where I said that I never heard of a feminist that didn’t support POC, I didn’t. What I did say in a post was that I have read many articles about it and had no intention of invalidating it.

            Maybe black people use the “N” word, however I don’t embrace the “Q” word, so out of respect for others who feel the samesame as I, I explained. What makes you say I don’t support homosexuals? That would be rather counterproductive since I am one.

            So see, you made assumptions, every one of which was wrong. How embarrassing for you. That’s not any way to achieve whatever your goal was.

          • Heather Bailey

            I think this whole disagreement is all misunderstanding. The comment of mine that you first replied to was a response to someone else who said she’d never heard of feminist that didn’t support POC. I didn’t remember who it was so when you replied to my comment in a very defensive way I thought it was you.

            I took your comment about homosexuals to you meant that you’re one of the POC that don’t support homosexuals.

            I think we’re on the same page.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            It must have been mean Heather, I said I didn’t know any feminists (I mean personally) who don’t support POC. It doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, but I keep on meeting feminists who do. In fact, I struggle to think where I could find a feminist that would say something against POC and their rights.

          • MM

            Actually your post could have been easily misinterpreted.

          • Drgulla

            Heather, Bomber said “Queers like me.” Obviously that is not the statement of someone who “doesn’t support homosexuals.” And by the way as a gay woman I have experienced some truly vicious misogyny from gay men, and I have also experienced homophobia from people of pretty much any ethnic background you can think of. (And, on the other hand, acceptance and kindness from some people from whom I wouldn’t have necessarily expected it) I’ve never held bigotry against any particular groups, nor do I assume that just because someone is gay or black or Latino or a woman that they are going to be accepting. That takes an open mind and an open heart, which any kind of person might have. Yeah, I get that Arquette’s wording might have been a bit unfortunate backstage- she was speaking off the cuff, she’d just won an Oscar for fuck’s sake. She had a lot on her mind. But why are we picking on people like her when there are people who genuinely believe that women deserve less than men and people of color deserve less than white folks?

          • Sarah Morison

            That is no doubt true, but a “white female” is not necessarily a “white feminist”. Feminist theory has undergone huge shifts in the course of the last 50 years, and today’s feminists — white, straight, or otherwise — should not be stereotyped based on the past. Those studying gender and feminist theory today in universities read tons of materials written by all sorts of feminists from different parts of the third world, from women of color, from gay and trans women, etc. Good grief, I read comments accusing today’s feminists as having the same mindset of female suffragettes at the turn of the century, which is ludicrous.

          • Peggy Smith

            There maybe white women who don’t support POC – are they white FEMINISTS tho? I’ve never known any white feminists who didn’t support all other movemnts: civil rights, gay pride, etc.

          • MM

            Yes there are plenty feminists who don’t support POC. There is a lot of information and research on it that you can easily look up.

          • Peggy Smith

            MM. Seriously. I’m sure the ratio of white straight feminists who do not support POC and gay rights, is minuscule in comparison to the ones who do. Did any study that you looked at online offer this: was it conducted with other groups of straight feminists say, Latina feminists? Straight WOC feminists? Male feminists of any stripe? If it wasn’t, then you are mearly basing your opinion on someone else’s (a blog maybe) and the study itself wasn’t a complete and or consistent one. Words mean something. When you say there is a lot of information and research on this, please provide a link(s) to back up your opinion. If you can not, then your post is mearly based on your own judgements of white feminists – if you want to do that, my sister, if you are comfortable doing that, please know that you are making a choice to do so. Any feminist who doesn’t support gay rights and WOC I would dare say is not a true feminist at heart. “Plenty of feminists” is not to immediately assume Ms. Arquette is in that minority you say there is “research” on. I’ve been a feminist a long time, gf. Any feminist I know and have known, certainly does not support your claims. Gay rights was born out of the feminist movement. Feminism was born out of the civil rights movement and so on. “We’ve been there for everyone else, now let’s support each other.” Yes, let’s. In the meantime, as feminists, let’s stop the idiocy that further divides us -judgements/finger pointing of each other AND GET UNIFIED. #istillbelieveanitahill

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            I agree that those men are not thinking critically, and I also agree that it is about time that the POC movements for equality got behind women, all women! So, I am agreeing with Patricia Arquette and find your so called critical thinking position more of a knee jerk reaction against a woman because she is white.

          • Duke

            Now we get to the truth. This is ultimately about race to you. Smh. I’m done.

          • bomber

            I think she was saying it is about race for you, but hey, what do I know, I’m no critical thinker…bwahahaha!

          • Duke

            Right…

          • bomber

            Snap!

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            How funny. It is you who made it all about race. “It’s sadly a common opinion among white women who just don’t get it.” If you were thinking critically and not just throwing our revised versions of the same discourse, you would have caught that.

          • bomber

            SNAP! :)

          • Snexas

            You’ve said you’re done twice now I believe. Buh bye.

          • bomber

            He’s a repeat “doner”. :D

          • MM

            You see this is where the problem is. You want POC who are suffering far more as a group to get “behind” women. So I’m eating steak and I demand that the person who only has beans support me. I must not understand that the person only has beans to eat. Blacks suffer much more discrimination than women and Black women suffer greatly from being a member of both groups.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            Women often side with their ethnic group over their gender… I feel that men have privileges that women do not have, particularly in marginalized communities. No one is asking you to go support white women, but support all women. I, for one, am tired of seeing women abandoning each other. Why is it so hard for us to act like a group in itself? Certainly there are gender and class divisions within any community, but that doesn’t destroy them. And just like privileged black people have helped the most marginalized in their communities so have privileged women helped other women. Not all, but some…. dismissing a whole group of women, not because of what they have done individually, but because they are white, is not productive to a woman’s struggle. If what you are saying is that you have no interest in a women’s struggle if it includes white women…say so… and those of us who disagree will move ahead as a gender knowing we can’t count on you.

          • Amanda

            So because you have never heard of it, it doesn’t exist? There are volumes of work spanning decades documenting the erasure of WOC voices in Feminism. This erasure isn’t new and your flawed conflation of black men and your perception of their solidarity doesn’t take away from those criticism.

          • bomber

            Can we all just get along? Yes, I have read many articles regarding the lack of inclusion of women of color being part of the Feminist movement so I will not attempt to invalidate that reality. However, I doubt Gloria Steinham thought she was only fighting for the rights of white women. I just ask you this, when will it be ok for all of us to join together and fight for everyon’s equal rights? I’m pretty sure laws could be drafted to cover these issues for everyone.

          • Amanda

            By placing intentions above the lived experiences of WOC you attempt to invalidate that reality. As to your question, I do actively engage in fighting for all people’s right to equality, all the while calling out oppressive language and the continued erasure of marginalized people. These are not mutually exclusive. Take care.

          • bomber

            Who, exactly, is putting intentions above and invalidating the experiences of WOC? The people challenging the opinion of the author here? PA? Kind of rhetorical…
            Take care too

          • Guest

            After leaving my work-desk job 12 months ago, I was lucky enough to get
            familiar with following awesome freelance job opportunity online which
            was a life-changer… They offer jobs for which people can do their work
            online from their home. Last check after working for them for four
            months was 10000 bucks… Awesome thing about is that the only thing
            required is basic typing skills and connection to the internet…
            -> —>READ more here <-

          • Peggy Smith

            Gloria Steinham – you are certainly correct on this. It’s like, by being a WOC and a feminist, you are anti-black male. All this infighting between ALL women does nothing to support the passage of the ERA, to keep planned parenthood open and to keep abortion legal.

          • Guest

            Twelve months ago,after
            resigning my office job , i’ve been fortunate to learn about this
            awesome job opportunity online which saved me… They offer online
            home-based work. Last paycheck after being on this job for them for 4
            months was 10000 dollars… Awesome thing about it was that the only
            requirement for the job is basic typing and a stable internet
            connection…
            -> –>Find out more here <-

          • Guest

            One year ago,after i quit
            my work-desk job , i’ve had luck to find following great company online
            that literally saved me… Offering well paid online jobs from home. My
            previous check doing this work for them for 4 months was $10k… Cool
            fact about the job is that the only requirement for this job is simple
            typing and a stable internet connection…
            -> —>see MORE <-

          • RachelK

            It’s less that anyone thinks that they are only fighting for the rights of white women. It’s more that people who would never think that way on purpose, still fail to consider the specific issues of black women, or indigenous women, or other groups within “women” who have things they need addressed. Things we white women just don’t even know about unless we listen to non-white women. And so many of us do not have a lot of black women around us, and it’s so easy not to even know that there are issues specific to black women. Or, we don’t live near a reservation, and just have no clue that indigenous women are dealing with shit we will never have to deal with.
            And there is a history of white women, when confronted with this new knowledge, to get defensive instead of listening.
            That’s a whole lot of nuance away from Gloria Steinham deliberately thinking, hmm, I want women’s rights, but only for white women. I mean, early suffragettes did think that and stated it explicitly, but that was a long time ago.
            I am not going to say that intentions are not important, but good intentions are not reason enough to ask that people not criticize content.
            So, to answer your question: we can all join together to fight for equal rights, ideally. But refraining from critiquing each other, failing to understand that solidarity doesn’t require us to pretend everything is lovely as long as intentions are good, when people are getting hurt by that – that doesn’t get us there. People wouldn’t get so aggressive about calling people out if the had the belief that a gentler critique would be heard. But it isn’t. So step one, to me, is to listen to each other. Listen to someone even if their anger frightens you, or annoys you, or makes you uncomfortable, or you find their anger inappropriate. If we all adopted this practice, I think we could unite together without getting into so many battles along the way.

          • Bandita

            Spot on! The latter part especially feels pertinent to what is happening. I’ve been getting accused of diverting issues and my reaction has been admittedly hurt and anger. It is the most frustrating thing to try to explain the problems with PA’s speech. It’s so well articulated in soooooo many critiques and yet it’s like there is some kind of mental block preventing understanding. I think my own explanations have just deteriorated due to exasperation. I had one friend explain how her hurdles are harder as a women scientist because working in science is obviously the same as being a minority. Plus her argument posits that hers is a white experience.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            I never said it doesn’t exist Amanda. I am just saying that the history of mainstream feminism is much more complicated than white women erasing WOC and that just because it happened, it doesn’t mean that Patricial Arquette was erasing WOC. You might feel that way, I don’t.

          • Amanda

            Cecilia, I am aware that mainstream feminism is complex and rife with different types of exclusion. However, I wasn’t addressing your or my feelings. I was responding to you saying, “I have never heard a feminist do anything but support the struggles of POC” and while I acknowledge that this is your experience, I was alerting you to a body of work that speaks differently.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            A body of work from when? I too can go back to the 1970s and find all kinds of things that would support your opinion, or even the 1990s. However, after a struggle of different opinions mainstream feminism is pretty darn multicultural now and white feminists are pretty aware. And, even as you can and I can find some feminists now that say ridiculous things, they are not the mainstream. All movements have processes.

          • Amanda

            From now. From this past year alone. There are women who don’t feel and are not represented in mainstream feminism. Who are creating spaces, discourse and contemporary bodies of work, whether you choose acknowledge that or not. I’m going to continue to be a part of processes that include nuanced criticism and reflection and hope the same for you. Take care.

          • Ali Wilkin

            ALL. Of. That.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            There is a difference between some WOC not feeling represented and mainstream feminism being this archaic thing that has to always be beaten down. I have heard many WOC, including WOC in my hispanic community, say things that would make me as a woman and a feminist not feel represented. I guess it goes both ways or do you think that WOC have it all figured out? And, many WOC are part of mainstream feminism, including myself. My solidarity is with all, but I am not going to undermine my solidarity towards women as a group for any other group I belong to. If we have problems, we will figure them out, but not by exclusion of some women.

          • bomber

            YAY! You go girl!

          • Hannah Rockey

            Cecilia…I fully support your perspective. Wet must respect the differences that our respective experiences have fostered in us and collaborate based on the strengths that we have. Instead of nitpicking a woman who stood up, responsibly, for the rights of women, perhaps we should drop the infighting and use our agency to create change.

          • Peggy Smith

            2015 Feminism is inclusive of all women and men. Not all women and men choose to be included.

          • Dana

            Oh my dear. Celcilia’s judgment of black men in relation to their black sisters in this matter are. It flawed at all. Knee jerk reactions do not suit your stance,

          • Amanda

            There was no denial. I just fail to see the relevance of some black men’s reaction to Cosby and what we are discussing. What do they have to do with one another? What was the aim in bringing it up? What does it say about all black men and their solidarity to their ‘black sisters’?

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            It has to do with Patricia Arquette’s statement that we have to bind together and fight for women, as a group. The divisions and hatefulness in some of the comments doesn’t help the women’s movement. And, how is it that pages and pages of insults by random black men towards women are “some men” (minimizing what is well known as a problem in the black community by many a black feminist) but everyone jumping on every white feminist out there for any misstep (Emma Watson also had a lot of hate directed at her) is somehow ok? Could it be possible that Arquette, who has financed anti-racism charities has done much more to support other struggles than some of the people who are dismissing her here?

          • Amanda

            Again, that has nothing to do with intersectionality and the erasure of marginalized voices in modern feminism. I’ll take a move out of your playbook and preface by saying that intersectionality is complex but is essentially about intersecting identities and the unique place they occupy not about hateful comments you read on YouTube or what charities Patricia Arquette is involved in. One can not “bind together” when you continue to deny my experiences and my humanity. When you use anecdotes and YouTube comments instead of the entire pedagogy of marginalized women’s voices to silence me. I was here to discuss intersectionality not Bill Cosby or your condemnation of an entire group of people. So, I’m not going to continue to help you derail this conversation any further. Goodbye.

          • LewisHenry

            did you want PA to recite a list of all the marginalized peoples and all of their intersections in a spur of the moment comment? just because she didn’t does not mean that she was erasing anyone or denying anyone.

          • Amanda

            If that’s your take away from this article and my comments, there is nothing left to discuss. Take care.

          • LewisHenry

            My take away from this article is that Grimes, as an economically privileged straight white woman, is attempting to speak for multiple groups of non-white non-straight non-financially privileged people and is completely and utterly wrong. She puts words in the mouth of PA and divines meaning where there may or may not have been any. She takes up her mantle of privilege and purports to speak for me?! I don’t think so. This article is indicative of everything that is wrong with modern activism. We tear each other down instead of building each other up. We find fault in every word ever uttered by anyone putting themselves out there bringing a call to action. It is shameful. Those who seek to actively oppress us – historically straight white economically and politically privileged men – don’t even have to work for it any more because we do it to ourselves.

          • Amanda

            Are you not engaging in the same thing your tearing this article apart about? Are you not tearing me down? You’re certainly not building me up. Are you not finding fault in what I say? Even though up stream I called for people to fight for all people’s equality. The thing that I recognize though is that criticism is a part of healthy discourse. Criticism is not inherently divisive. Are you trying to be divisive in your criticism of my comments? Are you being a bad activist? Criticism is a part of how we grow. It’s a part of how we evolve. It’s how we modify our thinking and language so that the next time we have a call to action it’s inclusive and there is no debate about our intentions.

          • LewisHenry

            I actually did not criticize your comments – I am being critical of the article and of Grimes interpretation of what PA said. Additionally there is No Way that anyone in any spoken situation can include everyone in discussion or call to action – because we are all individuals with our own public and private identities – in written discourse it would require billions of words. So let’s not parse out our words into being overly critical of others who are in fact advocating for us. Let’s not seek to intimidate and ostracize our allys.

          • Amanda

            It doesn’t take billions of words to be inclusive. In this case it would have taken one. Just one. No qualifiers or conditional statements. Goodbye.

          • LewisHenry

            Which one? Because with her words of women and men she covered most people in the world with the exception of intersex. That must be the word.

          • Reina Benoir

            Her words about women and the men who love them would have covered everyone in the world until she started talking about gays and people of color. Listing the three the way she did makes it as though gay people, people of color, women, and the men who love them are four different groups of people. Where would gay women, women of color or gay women of color fit into her list there.

            That is the problem people were having with what she said. If she had left it at women and the men who love them there would have been NO problem with what she said.

            I don’t understand why this has to be explained to people You’d think it was bloody obvious.

          • LewisHenry

            I’d think that is way fairly obvious to the world that the term People of Color would refer to all People of Color since men are not the only people.

            Of course if she had left it to women and the men who love them there would be uproar because not all men love women.

            And the use of the term gay refers to all gay people not just men who are gay since once again men are not the only people.

            I don’t understand why people don’t understand that the term people refers to all people. Unless people don’t think that women are people.

          • James

            Take luck!

          • DonnaDiva

            Actually PA did call out specific groups – LGBT and people of color – to demand that they do more to fight for women’s rights. Some people felt she was erasing the existence of the women in both those groups. As for those groups not doing enough for women, PA has her history totally, farcically wrong.

          • OGalaxy

            Unless she said “male LGBT,” and “male people of color,” she was obviously not erasing women in these groups. The very fact that she included the L in LGBT indicates that she was, quite clearly, including women.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            I am not condemning an entire group of people, I am talking about a systemic problem that might not have made it into books but is not any less real because of that. I am sorry, but while various male individuals in hispanic and black communities might be supportive, as communities there is a lot left to be desired. As for modern feminism… what modern feminism are you talking about? I feel very much tied to modern feminism and do not believe that most feminists are not aware of issues of race and class. Personally, I don’t think you know much about modern feminism. Take care!

          • Amanda

            Great. Continue to post as many quotes as you want while you erase your personal attacks, but please before you find another quote here’s this: http://www.derailingfordummies.com. Goodbye.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            My god Amanda, there are no personal attacks. I just disagree with you. You keep on saying that I am derailing, because I don’t agree with you. I agree with women in a POC communities loving themselves enough to demand rights for themselves within their communities and who love women outside of their own communities enough to work with them.

          • Amanda

            You attacked my knowledge and my feminism. I take that personal. You and I both know that you told me I know nothing about feminism, but you can play coy. I have no desire to continue to engage with a person who resorts to telling another women what her feminism should look like and derails important conversations when confronted with opinions and experiences different then her own. So let’s end this conversation here and now. Take care.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            Hi Amanda, I did not mean to offend you. Sometimes, in rhetoric, I get a bit lost. I certainly don’t feel the same way about feminism as you do because every feminist that I know (personally) has been very aware of issues other than gender and involved in them (and that includes white feminists). If your experience has been different, fine, but it isn’t mine. Even if it was, I think that striving for unity rather than division will lead to a better outcome for women of all communities. We can all exclude feminists who are jerks, every movement has them, but Arquette isn’t one of them.

          • Bandita

            Amanda, It’s a little creepy that every point being made here by the white feminists are the same as the ones my white feminist friends have made and every point you’ve made has been my thought but I have had a much harder time not being extremely hurt by these comments. These people don’t support me. We do not have the same struggles. This thread is a microaggression soup. I wish you were my friend because I love your amazing thoughtful replies. I came to this thread because I felt like I just needed to see someone who gets it.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            Maybe you will take it better from a black woman:
            (It would seem that she is arguing that in these race-based struggles, WOC struggles are silenced).

            We’re used to seeing women, mostly white women, get on Twitter and fight for feminism and against misogyny. But rarely, if ever, have we seen the black woman’s experience with misogyny within our own black community take center stage.

            But that’s exactly what happened when #blackpowerisforblackmen started trending sometime on Tuesday. The discussion was spawned by trending topic #solidarityisforwhitewomen which dealt with the ways in which women of color are often forgotten or intentionally ignored in the world of feminism.

            Shortly after that Jamilah Lemieux, Ebony’s Digital News and Life Editor, started an entirely new discussion about the ways in which black women are not only ostracized by white women but black men as well: #blackpowerisforblackmen.

            The hash tag is not to be taken literally. Initially, black pride was probably meant to include black women. However misogynistic attitudes are not limited to white men. We all know they are as equally pervasive, if not more so, in the black community and black women have borne a lot of that burden. Lemieux was saying that the very same people who are promoting black equality and fighting towards the end of racism are those who oppress black women.

            And because educated, black women run social media, particularly Twitter, the trending topic caught on and was trending nationally for a bit.

            If not all black men are like this, and they aren’t, why can’t you bind together with other women, including white women, who aren’t racists monsters either.

          • Amanda

            I am a black women. You are not providing me with brand new information. This is my lived experience. Nice try though. Goodbye.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            Fair enough, do you see people tearing down every black man who doesn’t talk about his own privilege when fighting for black rights? Or even the ones that are obviously misogynists? If I am not providing new information… then why is it so hard to see yourself, intersectionally, united with women, which is what Arquette asked for and I have been wishing for ever. Why are the gender divisions in the black community not impeding you from binding together but the divisions among women are impossible to overcome? Why not demand that every black man who speaks for black rights also understand women’s rights? I understand intersectionality, but when I see the comments against white feminists like Arquette (who you know nothing about) or Emma Watson, I wonder, really? Here you have women who at least are trying to do good and other women tear them apart while they often look the other way when it comes to men in their community. YES, it is about time that black men and hispanic men fight for women’s rights and that WOC realize that it is just as valid a fight as any other. So, we disagree…

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            I don’t know who you are Guest, I wasn’t providing you specifically with any information.

          • Just Observing

            I’m a black woman, too.I told my son that I wasn’t feminine enough to be a feminist. You see, black women are typically one of two things in American society; we are either strong meaning that we are like men or like work horses- ready to get out there in the field with the animals or we are sluts. It reminds me of the scene from 12 Years A Slave where Lupita’s character was out there working the fields, working harder than any man, and then in the middle of the night when no one was around, the master would have sex with her. We’ve never been considered women by this society so I’ve never see myself as a feminist. The struggle that black women face is unlike the struggle that someone like Patricia Arquette faces. she is considered a woman in this society.

          • Amanda

            Not that this should matter Cecilia but I am a black women. Every blog, twitter campaign or book etc. from black women that you try and quote me, I’ve probably seen, read, dissected, synthesized and adopted. I’ll quote the guest below and say “this is my lived experience”. You’re not going to tell me anything new about my lived experience. You’re not going to illuminate me about my own community. And you’re most certainly not going to use the words of other black women to silence me.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            I don’t want to silence you. All I am saying, and it is very much in tune with what Parquette is saying, is that women are not going to get equal rights through division and they are certainly not going to get rights through ethnicity based struggles. If so much perfection in understanding other oppression is demanded of white women (who actually do make an effort to do so), why isn’t it demanded as loudly of black and hispanic men? Why is it that well meaning white women cause such divide between us as to prevent us from moving ahead together but often actual discrimination and oppression from men is just swept under the rag in oppressed communities? I don’t think it is unreasonable for those of us who support all struggles to ask that gender- (and for that matters sexuality-) based struggles also be important.

          • MM

            All black men. Sorry that’s a like. Many Black men are critical of Cosby. It was a Black male comedian that brought the whole problem into the light.

          • Dana

            Very true. My bad. Explained above.

          • Ronald S. Jordan

            Dana, one that is not correct, don’t put all brothers in a box of convenience, We all don’t condone or support Bill Cosby, so to say that is wrong, just wrong! It seems to me again, most commenters would rather put black men in a place where we are all of common think tank. No as feminists are separate in their opinions so are black men, as black folks we all don’t all agree we are not a monolithic group of people. If you would, try the word “some” without that qualifier you allow black men as a whole to be vilified by some standing with a old black man who has abused women! There isn’t any one voice for black men as it isn’t for women in general, you all have different voices and different opinions and belief systems, as black men we do as well.

          • Dana

            I am certainly glad to hear that all black men don’t back Cosbys behavior, – but I already knew that and that was not the point of my statement. You are correct however that I should have been more clear.
            The point was that Cecilia’s judgment of black men in relation to their behavior with black women is valid. To attempt to tear someone’s valid experience with, “Not ALL of us! That’s not true!” is a bullshit argument.

            You know what? Men rape women. When someone puts that out there do you really think they mean every man is a rapist? No you don’t. Why? Because obviously that would be ridiculous and stupid.

            By the way, Cosby hasn’t just abused women. That could mean anything. Cosby has drugged and raped possibly hundreds to thousands of women over the many decades.

          • Bandita

            All of the black men I know are calling him despicable. Samuel L Jackson said he’s disgusted with Cosby. Stop stereotyping. If some people do something does that mean it’s a ubiquitous stance? There are a lot of women who support MRAs. Does that make it accurate to just make a blanket statement that women support MRAs?

          • Dana

            I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not stupid and just pass this off as your not reading my above comment in its entirety. Ok?

            P.S. It is ok to make the blanket statement that STUPID women support MRAs.

          • Tj Swift

            Look, your feminist friends at elite $50,000 schools, the ones who ‘work’ by chiding others (Grimes), and the ones who’ve millions of dollars (Arquette) aren’t oppressed fighters in the trenches. They are generals and princes of this movement appropriating actual struggles from actual victims while they live a life of utter privilege only exceeded by a subset of the male population that is extremely rich and powerful. The idea that these people know anything about struggles should be offensive to the 6 – 6.5 billion people who have it worse.

          • juanaguilar

            That really sucks for you. As long as we’re dropping anecdotes, though, I broke off a friendship with a gay friend who used the term “breeders” and suggested gay relationships are inherently more stable than straight ones. My point is that every group has assholes, and they’re usually louder than the nice people. Another anecdotal data point: all the black men I know think Cosby is a rapist.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            Why are you not dropping your friendships with all these people who are attacking PA for being a white woman? Is it that you are not one?

            My experience is simply reading the comments on various youtube videos about Cosby. Pick one. I am not saying all black men feel that way, but those who do have certainly left their mark on the net.

          • juanaguilar

            I don’t understand your questions. Because none of my friends are doing that? No, I’m not a woman… not sure why that’s relevant or even a question. I didn’t think anyone was saying her white womanhood was an issue in and of itself.

            In any case, it still sounds like your opinion is being skewed by those who “left their mark.” On youtube comments, of all places. Look, do yourself a favor and just don’t take any life lessons from youtube comments. And as I said, every group has assholes. They are outliers, not the norm. Letting them form your opinion is like trying to put together a puzzle with only some of the pieces.

          • Peggy Smith

            Exactly

          • Xxaire

            I don’t think that people are trying to argue that men (regardless of color) do/don’t have solidarity with women.The issue in this case is that intersectionality is a real thing that is being ignored.

          • Cecilia B. Toledo

            I am sorry you think I am ignoring it. I personally dislike using postcolonial words because they are, ironically, exclusionary. There are always easier ways of saying things. I, however, understand the concept and don’t deny it at all. That said, I don’t see why, within intersectionality, it is ok for a black woman to join a black movement that includes misogynists that are very open about it but not a women’s movement that includes white feminists who for the most part have as their intention to erase racism but blunder at meeting our expectations here and there.

          • Heather Bailey

            I don’t understand what you mean here. Can you explain better?

          • lwojo

            So, just because white women aren’t as oppressed as other people, we all shouldn’t stand in solidarity together?

          • MM

            No. But white women shouldn’t whine about everyone not helping them when they have so much more than others. We can stand in solidarity behind human rights, against discrimination but without the most privileged among us whining.

          • Dana

            There was no whining at all. She clearly said basically ‘We have supported you and it’s time you stand with us.’ Numbers, after all, do tend to push progress.

            You choose to see and hear it as ‘whining’ because you are looking for something to complain about rather than something to do to further the cause.

            Good luck to you.

          • Peggy Smith

            Duke – what would you like us to “get”?

          • Nell Webbish

            Srsly … the “I have a friend therefore this is not a problem” dismissal?

            Sorry but no, that is not a reasoned rebuttal.

          • Snexas

            Do you no know what the words “anecdotal evidence” mean? I am & if you’ll notice it wasn’t my only rebuttal.

          • Nell Webbish

            Yes I do know what anecdotal evidence is and I also know that it is a rather useless rhetorical response unless we are talking about you and only you. Put simply, no one cares or is impacted by your personal experiences expect you therefore they are pretty useless except to illustrate a point made with actual evidence.

            And yes, it was in fact the only point you made in the post I was replying to.

          • bomber

            Not to me and the author says ask a gay woman and that would be me.

          • kugolik

            I’m not saying every single gay person or person of color is or has to be offended by this. I’m glad you’re not. I’m just saying a lot are and I’m concerned about that.

          • bomber

            How many is “a lot”? I take umbrage as I see this article as more divisiveness. It’s past time that we worked together for the common cause of equal _________ (fill in the blank) for everyone. Like the black community supporting LBGT rights, for example. We can all point fingers, better to turn pointing fingers into handshakes of solidarity.

          • Snexas

            Exactly, each group can point fingers, but why? There’s a difference between talking about the problem of privilege in general & attacking each individual for their privilege when all they’re trying to do is help a cause.

          • SophieCT

            Nope. The post was created by someone who did not bother to find out anything about Patricia Arquette. The post was written by someone who deliberately chose to be divisive to get clicks.

          • Snexas

            I’m someone who disagrees with this post, but I’m also someone who often reads Andrea’s work. She’s not doing it for clicks. She genuinely believes this & I don’t think she’s trying to be divisive, but it did come off that way.

          • lwojo

            I find it totally unoffensive. All she is saying is that groups such as gays and people of color need to stand in solidarity with other groups also fighting for equality. Could she have stated it better? Yes. But to be offended by the idea is, in my opinion, absurd.

          • Snexas

            Some people have added words to her speech that aren’t there. I’ve seen people claim on this forum that she said the fight for the rights of gays & people of color is over. She said no such thing, but these folks chose to hear that & now they’re mad.

          • Barbara Storey

            Not at all – it explains why the writer found it offensive. Not the same thing. I’m no fan of Ms. Arquette, but I took her comment as an inclusive call to action, asking everyone to help each other, phrased awkwardly in a moment of high emotion. Nothing more.

          • Peggy Smith

            The hell it does. Explain why you think the statement is offense. You know, b/c someone makes a racial statement it does not mean that statement is racist. smh.

          • Tj Swift

            You’re offended because your ideology is nothing more than to be offended. The privilege shown by white feminists is unreal.

        • everythingl

          All the context you need is in the article. If your entire argument is “ppl find fault with everything” without any reference to the actual words and content, well, your “analysis” is facile and regurgitated mess.

        • fromanotherplanet

          It’s easier to reprimand others for finding fault in “everything” when you are not being erased in a discourse that directly impacts you. Not everyone enjoys your privilege sweetheart, so I would re-read the article if I were you.

          • bomber

            “Sweetheart”, how condescending of you. Women vs women about equal rights, how wonderful.

          • StubbornThing

            Can you be more specific when you say “you are not being erased in discourse that directly impacts you”?

          • Snexas

            Fromanotherplanet is making an assumption that you’re neither a person of color nor a member of the gay community. And since people on this forum require calling out every segment of every group, “gay community” to means the LGBTQIA… community.

        • Nell Webbish

          First, I’m not seeing anyone talking about being offended except for you, and you seem to be talking about being offended as a way to dismiss the points being made without actually bothering to formulate a cogent response.

          There is a difference between calling something out because you are offended and calling something out because it promotes problematic approaches to framing issues.

          • StubbornThing

            Okay. Thanks.

          • Snexas

            Let’s see, the list of people in this forum who have outright said they were offended include: kugolik, kneelbefortigers, xxaire, and arekisheru (who claims not to be offended, but called PA & anyone who agrees with her a scumbag who supports the patriarchy) just to name a few. There are plenty more.

        • Xxaire

          DISCLAIMER: I have no issue with White people as a group. I take issue with “Whiteness” as an object of “priviledge,” especially when White people don’t want to acknowledge it (I’m talking to YOU Patricia Arquette!). Further, this comment is not directed to StubbornThing directly, but more metaphorically. So before you start flipping out on me, I wanted to explain that.

          NOW FOR MY COMMENT: You know, I am SO SICK and tired of White people telling me that I don’t have a right to be offended when my Blackness is erased, ignored or used as some kind of prop for other people’s self-rightousness or entertainment. When you ask me why am I offended and I tell you (as evidenced in the entire blog post above) and then you ask me again, it tells me you can’t hear me past your “whiteness”. So why should I bother explaining myself?

        • DonnaDiva

          It’s always okay to call out marginalized people and criticize them for not doing enough but for some reason my call for white women to stop voting Republican at a rate of 60 – 70% is not going over well.

          Wonder why that is.

      • Cecilia B. Toledo

        what does we’ve all mean to you? Is it the same thing it means to her? I mean, we’ve all could be “all of us who are against discrimination”… your interpretation is your interpretation.

      • kneelbeforetigers

        EXACTLY….especially as the mainstream women’s movement has NEVER publicly come out for WOCs, women with disabilities and queer women.

      • DebraH

        The fact is – during the last two federal election cycles, there were clear attempts to roll back the block on women’s progress. When Jimmy the Greek said blacks males are better at sports because they were bred for strength, he lost his job. When many right wing so-called Christian males speak out on issues of women’s reproduction, such as mythical thinking about the bodies reaction to rape, people snicker but the gender biased good old boys get re-elected.

        • bomber

          Bingo! But hey, as women let’s divide into groups and argue back and forth as to who has it worse. That’ll work.

          • DebraH

            Patricia Arquette was not dividing “us” women into groups or arguing about who has it worse and neither was I.

          • bomber

            I know Patricia wasn’t……

        • Snexas

          Agreed. Some people don’t seem to know who their enemies are.

          • bomber

            Bwahahaha…just had to laugh, it’s getting so tedious. Does no longer no one get the irony of a bunch of women arguing about equal rights for women? Maybe that’s why we don’t have them yet. SMH…

          • Cactus

            Seriously? You’re pulling that one out? The old “women don’t have rights because they’re too silly, petty, and bickersome, they wouldn’t know what to do with them” line? That’s been an antifeminist tactic used since at least the first round of the women’s suffrage movement. Whether you have quibbles with Arquette’s speech or not, I really don’t think tactics like that advance anything she said or tried to say.

      • kelly

        How can you not understand that what she was saying is based on the reality of women’s suffrage helping drive abolition of slavery, then having the Civil Rights movement completely ignoring the struggles women were still experiencing. Reciprocity is integral to fruitful partnerships.

      • Blue Orion

        I thought the “fight for US [emphasis mine] now” means, includes women, gay people, and people of color. It’s the same kind of us as in, “Let’s get us some ice cream–you, mean, and Janey down the street”. “Let’s fight for us, women, gay people, and people of color”.

        However, her statement IS ambiguous. I can read her sentence either way, as gays and people of color should be supporting women, or that gays and people of color are women and they need to fight for themselves [they are us] too. It’s her tossing in the “men that love women” that throws the whole thing off. I’m hoping she was just tired and drunk and blurting out whatever.

        • bomber

          It was a tipsy blurt, I’m sure.

      • Melinda Kaye

        UM WHY the hell not — did no straight or white people fight for gay or civil rights ?? You are so sad — clearly the gay community is making strides in the this country & some gay people – HAPPEN to be women — weird isnt it ??? Dont try to segregate — you look foolish – people can fight for whatever cause they choose to & ask for help from whoever they like

      • Alyssa Silverman

        It’s simply that she never mentioned any specific type of woman to fight for… just women in general. If black men earn less than white women, it very likely follows that black women earn even less than black men. She’s simply asking everyone to fight together for the rights of women as wage earners, just as other groups have been fought for by a variety of different people from different walks of life. Her reference to gay people and black people is completely separate from her reference to the need to fight for women’s wage rights. She’s asking people from all walks of life (ie. gays and blacks as an example) to help fight. What’s the fight for? Women’s wage equality.

      • jj

        What she was saying is that the black and LGBTQ civil rights movements have been around for a while and they have made great strides. But equality for women (that includes women of color) is a subject that isn’t been discussed and addressed with the same fervor. She was saying that we’ve fought for equal rights for other minorities and it’s time to address inequality for women, (yes ALL women) also. People need to chill out.

      • Melinda Kaye

        Yeah she was referencing other people who fought their asses off for progress.

        All different kinds of people fight daily for gay and civil rights. Gay marriage is finally being allowed a lot more. It’s awesum.

        those people have gone through hell to get where they are and she knows it. Women need to make more progress as well

        ♢♢♢wake up and use your brains

      • Dana

        What is there to defend? It IS time, – WAY past time -, for all women, all the men that love women, gay people, and people of color, that women have fought for, to fight for women now.

        You don’t even make sense. What? To appease your nit picking ass she should have strangled her message by going into long winded specifics? Oh ok. How about, ‘It’s time for all women, and all the men that love women, all gay people, all women that are gay, all women that are straight, all people of color, all people of color that are gay, all people of color that are straight, all people of color that are male, all people of color that are female, all people over the age of 18, all people that are not murderers, pedophiles, and/or rapists, to fight for us now.’

        Are you happy?

        Good job on taking an important statement and choosing to drag it down in your muck. Bravo.

      • Peggy Smith

        What’s to defend? Feminists have always and willingly supported civil rights and gay rights. What’s your issue with the statement?

        • Cactus

          Not exactly. After slavery ended, the major women’s suffrage groups underwent a schism concerning voting rights for Black men, and both the first and second waves of feminism focused mostly on white women’s issues than intersectional ones. (A prime example being that while many white middle- class women wanted to work outside the home, this was commonplace for black and working-class women, who had other issues to contend with based on their race and class as much as their gender.)
          And then there was Betty Friedan’s whole “lavender menace” insult to lesbians.

      • LewisHenry

        Still don’t see the problem with the statement. She did NOT exclude lesbians (last time I checked lesbians are gay), and she did NOT exclude women of color (again, women and men fall into the POC catagory). The Republican Party is laughing at us (and by ‘us’ I mean marginalized, underrepresented, oppressed people, etc etc etc.) Why are people expecting a list of all the people that have ever existed, do currently exist, and will one day exist from a spur of the moment comment? How much energy are we going to continue to waste by tearing each other down instead of lifting each other up? If we all stood together we would have already reached our goals of justice and equality. Instead we go around finding fault in each other and back bite. It is shameful and it’s how those in power stay in power.

      • Melinda Kaye

        We have fought to vote, get maternity benefits in the workplace and join the military — the gays have fought to win their marriage rights — SOME OF THOSE GAYS ARE WOMEN. If we all band together we can move forward — she is segregating nobody !!!!

    • Budsterz

      Pick up a 120 pound back pack, hump it for 20 miles, you are a Marine. The equal bitch picks up a 40 pound sack and carries it half the distance, she’s a Marine. Sounds right in a pussified merika.

    • lwojo

      Well said.

    • Peggy Smith

      Exactly

    • John Clarke

      Snexas I have to agree with you. All this crapping on her is not helping the cause. She’s a SHE..a woman…who just wanted to help the cause…and this is what she gets? Yeah, that’s going to appeal to your base…surrrrre…and that’s not going to give more ammo to the people that are actually PART OF THE PROBLEM…like Fox News…so immature…so short sighted…just plain STUPID.

  • gardensheila

    I think you are carried away with the criticism vibe. I doubt Arquette isn’t aware there are gay women and women of color. She may be out of line as a straight white woman telling others where to prioritize, but I’d like to give her the benefit of the doubt. She did use a large stage to promote working against injustice. Why not be angry at real enemies of justice instead?

    • Joe Paulson

      I respect your overall point but my basic philosophy in cases like this is that we often are a bit more upset when people we think are approachable slip up some than in other cases. Not quite a “spectacular fail” but when we have such a platform it is important to carefully determine what we say.

      • gardensheila

        She certainly could have done better with the reporter if she had prepared her remarks. It doesn’t sound like she did. Also “quotes” from journalists are often wrong.

        • Betty J Rousey

          She should have just played it safe, I suppose, and thanked her supporters who helped her win the award. But I am certainly glad she didn’t, and I am for equal rights for all.

  • jan

    Andrea, maybe she wasn’t entirely politically correct but can’t we give her credit for using the largest forum she will probably ever have to advocate for women’s equality? it’s this kind of condescension from other women that keeps us divided.

    • Erica Daniels Tyson

      To which condescension from other women are you referring?

      • Betty J Rousey

        I hope she means the gripers who were not satisfied with every clause she put in or failed to put in…

        • Erica Daniels Tyson

          Oh, I see. Additionally, it could have been the condescension of a woman saying – people of color and gays (which…include women, too, yes? no?) – we women have fought for you, now fight for us.

          • Andrew Paul Wood

            Yes, people of colour and gays include women, they also include men who could be doing a hell of a lot more for the women in their community, not to mention the women in those communities who could be reaching out to women in other communities.

  • Joe Paulson

    I’m okay with some criticism but that’s some fine tuning criticism for an Oscar acceptance speech statement that was overall a total surprise unlike some of the good comments made that were germane to the character played etc.

  • OGalaxy

    I think the author of this post is over-analyzing Arquette’s comments. When she refers to “gay people” and “people of color,” I don’t think she is ignoring intersections; I think she is referring to movements. I took her remarks to mean that feminists (women) have fought for gay rights and fought against racism and now she’s calling for these same movements to band together for wage inequality. This article suggests she only wants wage equality for white women but she never said that, and it’s a stretch to make that assumption. When she refers to “us” I do think she means all women. She probably could have worded her remarks better, but I think the meaning is clear to anyone who’s not eager to look for every little flaw and imperfection.

    When I read articles like this, I begin to understand why people misunderstand feminism and have negative feelings about it. When feminists attack people (who are standing up for women’s issues) over semantics, it’s no wonder so many people find the movement unappealing. This article could have pointed out the problems with the semantics of Arquette’s statements while endorsing her call for action but instead it just attacks her, but instead it comes off as whiny and nit-picky.

    • Debbie Lusignan

      This was just downright petty.

    • Erica Daniels Tyson

      She’s simultaneously victim-claiming and victim-shaming. I am a fan of neither so I cannot get on board with this.

    • Skeptic

      It sounded to me like Arquette feels that we have achieved whatever we were trying to accomplish for gay people and people of color and now we just need to work on equality for the sexes… and that would be pretty far from the truth.

      • bomber

        Bah!

    • lady_black

      Indeed. She never said anything like what the author is crediting her with saying. I think “all” is a word that can be taken at face value as meaning ALL, and not breaking that down to components.

    • bomber

      Thank you.

  • Mia Birdsong

    Totally on point! Sharing everywhere.

  • Debbie Lusignan

    Sorry. I am not with you here. I think she was simply trying to say ALL women need equal pay. This commentary read like…who is more oppressed…you are a white woman and you didn’t frame this in a way that highlighted others oppression as worse then yours. You even ended with telling people not point that out….well, I am pointing it out. She used a moment to call for equality for ALL women (and we are all women right, black, white, gay, straight…). It is unifying. I think her point that all the oppresed groups that we advocate for join together and lift up women. I don’t think that is a negative message. I get your point. I don’t agree

    • Erica Daniels Tyson

      I think that is resonates with you as unifying is a reflection of you. We see things as we are.

  • Laura Handel

    Okay. So, I do see what you’re trying to say. But I don’t agree that this is an appropriate response to what Patricia said or meant to convey. I love you Andrea, but I feel like this is an overly academic response to the spirit of Patricia’s plea, which is that people who are conscious of other forms of oppression – like racism and homophobia – very often, and SADLY, and maddeningly(!) do NOT also take up feminist causes and concerns more seriously. And I think she is onto something that cannot and should not be drowned out by critiques of alleged failures to recognize intersectionality. There are forms of oppression and discrimination that are categorically suffered by women and girls, whatever the time period or culture, and only the ways in which these categorical harms manifest from time to time and place to place differ in style or intensity; but the only way to fight any one of them is to recognize them specifically as harms to women. And that may involve peeling away other layers of identity and their accompanying oppressions (or privileges). I think that if the harm in question is a specific one, then addressing it properly requires identifying it and providing targeted relief (for lack of a better word). It’s not about blinding oneself to other forms of oppression in order to address women’s; and it’s not about being blind to the variations or different degrees of suffering or harm that are endured by women of different races, classes and sexual orientations. But it is about seeing the commonality of all women, regardless of all of these other identifying markers, as targets of sex-specific harms (even if the types of harm may vary). Because all women are hurt by sexisms (plural). And women (feminists and non-feminists alike) fight for equality and social justice on all of these other major fronts. And yet women who suffer sex-specific harms often feel unsupported in their quest to be treated as equals, or with dignity. I understand Patricia’s anger. I think she made a very powerful practical point. I think that feminists should confront it not for its blindness but for its insight.

    • Snexas

      Agreed. Women have tirelessly suffered as they always do for everyone else. It’s time everyone returns the favor.

      • minuialear

        Who is “everyone else,” though?

        Okay, if you’re calling on men to help out with feminism because we’ve suffered for men, sure, do so. But women as a whole suffering for people of color and gay people? That’s like claiming that there aren’t women of color or gay people of color who were fighting for their own rights when fighting against racism and homophobia. A fight which is by no means over on either front, too.

        • Snexas

          Um, I don’t know how much more clear I can make it. Everyone else would be anyone who isn’t a woman. In general though I think all oppressed groups need to work together & help each other.

          • minuialear

            You missed the point, though. If “everyone else” is just everyone who’s a biological male, why the need to ask “the gays” or “people of color” to help out? Why not just ask men to help out? E.g., “Men, we heled you with your __ movement, and your __ movement; it’s time for men to help women with ours,” instead of calling upon every person of color and every gay person (many, if not the majority, of which are women) to help out?

            This is exactly the problem; even if you don’t mean to, your blanket statements against groups of minorities are also directed to women in those groups (women who are fighting no harder than straight cis white women).

          • Snexas

            I thought we were speaking about my words, not Patricia’s. You responded to my comment. My “everyone else” meant everyone who is not a woman.

            As for what I think Patricia meant by calling out the other groups was a call to action for all oppressed groups to get behind women’s rights. I don’t think she meant any harm by it, but hey, I’m not her. Maybe she hates people of color & gay people. Yeah, I bet she does *sarcasm*.

          • minuialear

            I am speaking about your words (which I assumed were expressing the same sentiment). If you actually meant to be even more broad than that, then my criticism still stands. You meant your “everyone else” to mean men, but that’s not what “everyone else” actually means. You need to be more aware of what the language you use is actually saying, and to be more aware of the consequences of not thinking things out before saying things.

            I don’t think she hates other people (nor do I think you hate “everyone else”). This is all the result of privilege-blindness. Privilege-blindness doesn’t necessarily arise out of hate, but just out of a fundamental blindness to how our language excludes and/or insults those who are not within the same level of privilege. For example, hearing that a female friend went on a date and asking if the guy was cute, or saying “gay people should help out women more,” forgetting that there are gay women, as well as gay men, and therefore that a call to all gay people would be imprecise at best.

          • Snexas

            Dear lord.

          • Laura Handel

            Minuialear, I understand what you’re saying in that it may have been preferable for men to be called by name (“men of color,” “men in the gay community”) to arms in the name of women’s causes as we have showed up on the battlefield for theirs (and I believe that this is exactly what PA meant). But I don’t think that the fact that she asked “people of color” or “people who are gay” to help fight discrimination against women intentionally or unintentionally penalizes the women in those categories (color, LBGT) at all.

            My instinct would be to take PA’s message to mean that the women in those marginalized categories should feel entitled to equality *on the basis of gender* just as the men of color and men who are gay feel entitled to freedom from race- and sexual orientation-based discrimination and violence. I didn’t feel like PA was trying to tell any woman that she was at fault for any woman’s inequality; quite the contrary, I felt that she was saying that all women deserve to be defended from sex-based harms – and deserve to feel entitled to equality – and not have their well-being compromised by having their struggles put on hold. And that women should feel entitled to have their suffering taken just as seriously as other forms of suffering they may endure, or help fight against, like racism and homophobia. I really thought that everything she said was very woman-loving, across all subcategories. I felt that she was saying that until women are no longer being targeted for unequal treatment – as women – that we, as women, have a right to demand that we be valued and cared about. What women have in common across all races, sexual orientations, and other categorical distinctions is that we are all subject to sex-based harms. And we should find solidarity specifically in that, just as we do (or should) practice solidarity against all other forms of oppression.

            And it may be worth noting that John Legend devoted practically all of his acceptance speech to raising consciousness about the incarceration of black men. Not of black people, not of black women (who figure greatly into the criminal justice system’s systemic atrocities), and not other forms of suffering experienced by people of color who live in our systemically racist society. He much more clearly made a choice to ignore all women of any race or sexual orientation, and all other races or ethnicities, when he called for justice. Worth thinking about. And this is an illustration of the disparity in empathy and action that PA’s comments were alluding to; why are women missing not only in calls for relief from sex-specific harms, but also from calls for relief from race-based and other harms? By men who SHOULD be much more socially conscious of what oppression is?

          • minuialear

            First of all let me just say, thank you for your respectful and educated response, even if I disagree. :) It’s been sorely lacking in this forum.

            I think it’s very ambiguous what PA really meant to say (especially when she made the exact same mistake later, on Twitter, when she asked the LGBT community why they weren’t fighting for all women). Maybe she’s just terrible at expressing herself, and when she’s talking to the LGBT community on Twitter, she also just meant people who weren’t women. Maybe she keeps making the mistake, even while people argue with her over Twitter about it, because that is what she means to say. And we can all maybe debate on what she meant to say.

            That’s not what I’m arguing, though. I’m not saying PA must have been trying to do X or meant Y. I don’t think she’s racist or homophobic either, as some have tried to allege. All I’m saying is that in saying what she did, her words tapped into a history of marginalization of WoC/gay women/trans women/etc, by white, straight, cis women. And that she should be aware of that, and keep that in mind in the future, and should choose words which don’t invoke the same sentimentality. In other words, even if trying to marginalize people was the farthest thing from her mind, it doesn’t hurt for her to be reminded that this kind of language can rub people the wrong way because of the history of the feminist movement, and that her point would be best served if she could avoid those pitfalls.

            I also agree that Legend likely fell for the same pitfall PA fell for, which was to worry more about their personal hardships, than to remember the full hardships of all members of their demographic. I would disagree that his choice was any more conscious/deliberate than PA’s (if we’re assuming PA’s statement wasn’t deliberate); PA also had the chance to bring up issues that black women or gay women are really worried about, such as being able to get employed at all, or violent hate crimes.

            But I don’t want to get too far into those weeds. In part because even if I agreed Legend was worse, that doesn’t excuse what PA said, IMO. In part because I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about whether or not one was actually worse than the other. And in part because my problem with PA isn’t that she didn’t mention these other concerns, or that her one concern was obviously more of a (white, straight, cis) woman concern (even if WoC suffer most from wage gaps, that’s probably not in the top 5-10 things they face as women; but I’m fine with PA wanting to focus on one of the top 5 for white straight cis women), but just that her words implied that certain women weren’t working hard enough for their own cause (again, even if this wasn’t her intent–though I think we may disagree on that).

          • Laura Handel

            I understand. I still stand by my impression/interpretation of her words’ meaning, but I can see how other interpretations are equally plausible. We may disagree on this, too, but my gut feeling about why a longer list of grievances wasn’t aired was because she was crunched for time in an acceptance speech and probably nervous to be saying what she was saying at all in the first place. I don’t disagree that in more opportune moments with more time to speak that consciousness should be raised about the variations of oppression that women across categories suffer; it feels different to be a white cis woman than it does to be a black woman, a lesbian, a woman living under an overtly aggressive male-dominant political regime; all of the women in these categories experience different kinds of sex-based harms, very true, no dispute. But they all are targeted to live compromised lives and have compromised personal well-being and safety entirely because of the fact that they are women, and live in societies that attach harmful meanings to that. And this was the bolt of insight in PA’s comments that I feel so desperate to rescue :) – it’s NOT the only important point worth making, but we live in a world that is SO hostile to women AS women, regardless of race or sexual orientation or gender association, that we are made to feel unentitled to even point that out. It’s infuriating.

            As for John Legend, I will never back down on my intolerance of racism or my hatred of it just because the John Legends of the world only seem to put their bodies and souls on the line for marginalized men; but it breaks my heart none the less. It breaks my heart for ALL women, but especially women of color, who should never be so betrayed as to feel invisible to the men whose race-based injuries they share.

            As always, I am equally filled with disappointment and hope.

            Much respect for you, Minuilear.

          • minuialear

            >> my gut feeling about why a longer list of grievances wasn’t aired was
            because she was crunched for time in an acceptance speech and probably
            nervous to be saying what she was saying at all in the first place.

            Out of curiosity, why do you excuse PA for this, but not JL? One could argue Common’s speech (which already touched on a number of different groups of people) left JL with little time for him to personally touch upon a variety of matters that affect all PoC.

            I’m not attempting to excuse anyone here myself; I guess I just don’t get the impulse to defend PA, and with the same breath slam JL, when they were ostensibly doing the same thing.

            >> it breaks my heart none the less. It breaks my heart for ALL women, but
            especially women of color, who should never be so betrayed as to feel
            invisible to the men whose race-based injuries they share

            The thrust of this argument seems to be to imply that the marginalization of black women by black men is worse than the marginalization of those same women by white women in the feminist movement. But this couldn’t be further from the truth. This is maybe why I’m less willing to say JL’s speech was worse than PA’s; because marginalization within a race to me is no worse than marginalization within a gender (assuming either was marginalizing). It’s all just people focusing on the issues that affect them personally.

            And I guess my beef isn’t with focusing on what matters to one personally, either. I accept that black guys are more worried about their incarceration than they are about female incarceration; I accept that white women are more worried about the issues that affect them, than they are about even making sure

          • Laura Handel

            I, too, could benefit from choosing my words more carefully. :)

            So, to be clear, I don’t think that I’m trying to suggest that JL’s speech was “worse” than PA’s (or that either was “bad” at all). I do not defend marginalization of women of color by white feminists and I don’t tolerate marginalization of women of color (or ANY women) by men of color (or any men). I don’t think that JL or PA intended to marginalize anyone.

            What JL had to say was important; it was an important point that needed to be made, and he did it powerfully and beautifully. The suffering of black men matters; the unspeakably corrupt and racist nature of the prison system in America matters. But while that I am SO grateful that he made this point – please don’t get me wrong, I commend it! – I still couldn’t help but notice that black men were the only visible targets of harm. And they are not; women of color, too, are victims of a corrupt incarceration system. So, it would have helped his point if he had included those women; he chose one very specific harm to discuss from his platform, and he left out a segment of people of color who are impacted by it. I’m not mad at JL; or maybe I am, a little? But it still reminded me of how invisible (and even TOLERATED) women and women’s suffering is in general in those social movements, historically speaking. That is the reason why I really hooked into what JL said. He didn’t even pretend to include women by using a gender neutral term, like “people.” He specified men. So, it struck me, I guess.

            Whether or not you and I, or everyone else in this enormous thread agree on how best to interpret what PA said and what kind of empathy she feels for women, I will say this: I am proud of all of these feminists who are so committed to being conscious of other forms of inequality and discrimination. I am proud of us, because we’re NOT only worried about women.

            But I wish activists and people of conscience who are more active or in tune with other social movements were more worried about women, so that I didn’t feel like I had to spend so much more of my energy worrying about violence and discrimination against women, for chronic fear that if *I* don’t remain devoted, nobody else will stand watch while I turn my attention too far elsewhere.

            Does this make sense?

          • minuialear

            It definitely makes sense. I could take this same sentiment:

            >> But it still reminded me of how invisible (and even TOLERATED) women and women’s suffering is in general in those social movements, historically speaking…He didn’t even pretend to include women by using a gender neutral term, like “people.”

            change it to:

            “But it still reminded me of how invisible (and even TOLERATED) minority women and the contributions they have made in the feminist movement have been, historically speaking…She didn’t even pretend to claim she was just referring to men; she said “people.”

            And apply it to PA’s comment.

            I would also argue that this sentiment:

            >> But I wish activists and people of conscience who are more active or in tune with other social movements were more worried about women, so that I didn’t feel like I had to spend so much more of my energy worrying about violence and discrimination against women, for chronic fear that if *I* don’t remain devoted, nobody else will stand watch while I turn my attention too far elsewhere.

            is also felt by those people of color, and those LGBT people, etc, that PA is speaking to. Which is maybe why people in those communities aren’t very quick to defend PA’s call for everyone to stop what they’re doing and help women, either. Because just as other movements don’t worry as much about women as they maybe should, we women as a whole often don’t actually worry as much about race or LGBT issues as they maybe should. It’s a problem endemic to all social movements, by nature of the huge stakes involved in getting these basic rights for each of the social movements that other demographics already have.

            Again, very pleased at the respectfulness of this conversation. :)

          • Snexas

            This!!! Yes, that’s how I took it. I can’t believe some people can’t see it.

          • SophieCT

            Ever think you’re being just a tad petty and reading into something that’s not there?

          • minuialear

            Ever think it’s worth considering a different point of view, and to keep insults to yourself if you choose not to?

          • SophieCT

            I do consider alternate points of view. Yours is a narrow, untenable argument. I wish you really could care about women as much as you care about making your pointless point. The words professional victim come to mind when I read your comments. You are not helping any oppressed group have a better day. Not one.

          • minuialear

            I can’t help but laugh at the complete lack of self-awareness you must have to have said all that.

            You have a nice one.

        • Guest

          No it’s not like claiming any of that. You’re reading into it to fit a narrow, pointless argument.

  • MartieMC

    I support Ms. Arquette’s effort in bringing this issue to light in the platform of this celebration of the movie arts. In the moment of passion and emotion I cannot fault her a couple of choice of wording. “It’s time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women
    and all the gay people and all the people of color that we’ve all
    fought for to fight for us now.” The only thing I would change in this statement is the “for us” to “with us.” The fight for equality is a question of justice and not limited to race or gender, or gender identity. And our “enemy” is not a generic “white rich man” but a system which holds its foundation as struggle of “haves” making sure there are enough “have nots.” That is why we need not just an equal pay law, but passage of the ERA.

    • Snexas

      Yeah, my one wish is that in her speech she would’ve called to finally pass the ERA.

  • Snexas

    Well, yet again, the conversation about women’s rights has been derailed. I saw PP post in support of her comment & then immediately post about “the controversy”. We can’t seem to talk about women’s rights for more than an hour.

    • Laura Handel

      I was irritated that before the Oscars was over, Neil Patrick Harris already had a joke about “Meryl Streep thinking she’s underpaid” after hearing Patricia’s speech. The message didn’t even have time to change a bad social reality before it was a joke and time to laugh again.

      • Laura Handel

        To be clear – and ethically consistent – it was just as off-putting that NPH opened the show with a joke about the Oscars being a celebration of “the best and the whitest,” in response to critiques of lack of diversity. That sucked. Make jokes about healed wounds (if any?), not live ones.

  • Russel Ray Photos

    I think part of the problem here as it pertains to “all the gay people” is that while “gay” once was considered a large community of men, women, bisexual, transsexual, and transgendered, it’s not really that way anymore. That is why we in the “gay” community use
    the tem LGBT, which stands for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.” Notice that “lesbian” and “gay” both are included? That’s because “gay” in our community pretty much means homosexual men, whereas “lesbian” means homosexual women. So when Arquette said
    “gay,” I took it to mean homosexual men, not the LGBT community as a whole. I think she’s more in tune with the LGBT community than most people, which is why she referred to “men who love women and all the gay people…”

    If I parse the sentence like my high school senior English teacher taught me to do I see that she mentioned “all the women in America,” AND “all the men that love women” AND “all the gay people” (those are male homosexuals) AND all the people of color (that includes male AND female) that we’ve all fought for.”

    So I’m just not seeing a problem. Thus, I shall go back to work.

    • Nicolay Bang

      All this rigidity in political correctness is going to far. You cannot say anything without it being interpreted, one way or the other, as “offensive”.

      • Snexas

        Also, groups tend to act like everyone in their group is a monolith which isn’t true. I was on the board of a gay & lesbian film festival that had plenty of in-fighting about this very issue of whether or not to add the BTQIA, etc… to their name. At some point, it’s no longer a community when the name has to include 20 different initials.

  • bomber

    Let’s be real. Equal pay for women means all women, gay, black, brown, yellow, rich, poor….get the point? What part of “all women” leaves out lesbians and women of color? I rarely (if ever) see gay men stand up/speak out for women’s rights; doesn’t happen; I can say that, I’m gay. The black community doesn’t support gays much, which includes women…
    Enough hooey! We need to stop separating ourselves into categories and then bicker and obsfuscate our issues. Equal does mean equal, no matter who or what you are.

    • Erica Daniels Tyson

      We need to stop separating ourselves..but you just said you don’t see anybody standing up? Please re-read what you just wrote. I think you have an intention to help, but you just insulted people.

      • SophieCT

        Nope–no insult there–only if you’re looking (actually reaching) for one. I suppose each crack in the sidewalk was deliberately put there expressly to trip YOU up.

  • DebraH

    I get what she is saying. Here’s a historical fact: when neither women nor all blacks had the right to vote, and after many white women worked for both abolition and universal suffrage, Frederick Douglas supported the notion that it was better for black males to get the vote before ALL people, black and white, male and female got the vote. Women have often provided support for the causes of others while taking a back seat in their own causes. The fact that many white women earn closer to what white males earn parallels the reality that black women with more education than black men earn less than those same black men. As for what Patricia Arquette said, she spoke as an empassioned artist rather than as a public policy wonk and people generally favor passion over statistics and analysis – except for when both are delivered by GREAT speakers such as Bill Clinton. She made sense. Give her a break.

    • Erica Daniels Tyson

      Thanks for bringing in the historical perspective. Here is more: http://the-toast.net/2014/04/21/suffragettes-sucked-white-supremacy-womens-rights/

      • DebraH

        Here is some more: many churchy type folks who supported women’s suffrage did not support women’s rights as equals, rather they supported Prohibition and wanted the women’s vote to put the vote through. Sounds like this “lady” was a tool. In what state was she elected? I’ll check myself.

      • DebraH

        great article – thanks

    • Reina Benoir

      You neglected to include the parts where there was a split with the white women who when they saw that black men were going to get the vote joined up with white supremacists in their attempts to get the vote. So while abolisinists were busy getting “Negroes” the vote and suffragettes were looking to get white women teh vote and we have black women stuck in the middle. That clearly hasn’t changed based on that backstage speech.

      But this glossing over of history isn’t really the more egregious problem in this discussion. The criticism of PA is really rather mild. No one is calling for a boycott, they aren’t calling her a terrible person (although not for nothing she has some very questionable stuff on her twitter page. Cholo costume really?) All people are saying that when discussing these things one should keep in mind that using the word women and then calling out people of color and gays as though there weren’t people who fall into more than one of those groups is problematic. That’s it. Why are people losing their shit and basically telling people who had a problem with that aspect of PA’s backstage comments that they should STFU unless they are willing to be a sycophant and willingly and mindlessly applaud everything said even if there’s something you might have a bit of a problem with.

      This is what progressives consider inclusive? If there’s a problem with a criticism this mild how do you plan to discuss anything?

      And then you wonder why some black people aren’t too keen to toss in their lot with progressives.

      • DebraH

        I didn’t neglect to mention anything. I seek only to draw attention to the fact that “women,” a large group – half the population – often support the causes of other “groups” while other “groups” do not always see the value of supporting the group known generally as “women.”

        • Reina Benoir

          Then you’re being rather self serving here aren’t you? Oh the suffragettes supported universal suffrage. Except when the Republicans decided to work on getting the vote for black men (which is what they mean by blacks) they sided with white supremacists in order to argue that they should get the vote first. Better to give the vote to white women than Negroes was the argument.

          That is only the beginning of feminism ignoring the issues of lower class women, gay women, and women of color. Given that history, one would think it would behoove white feminists to make sure that when they say “we” they mean all women and not just white women. PA’s comments did not make that clear AT ALL which is why people are speaking up.

          And your reaction is to tell people that women were always fighting for other people’s civil rights when the history says not so much?

          No. That’s ridiculous. Yes I get that you only wanted to highlight the times when white women fought for others, but to do so without acknowledging when that same movement didn’t is disingenuous and quite frankly that is part of the problem.

  • Erica Daniels Tyson

    I personally think Patricia Arquette tells you exactly what she means and how she views her identity and the identity of “women”. I think she is speaking her sincere perspective. From the heart.
    Now a blogger says, I think this actress characterized things in a way that excludes some from “women.” People then say – “I personally don’ t think she meant that. So your views about her and your feeling of offense – I will decide they are false, an overreaction or incorrect.” The sayers of such things, do you respond well to people evaluating your perception of a thing; do you embrace such dismissal?
    At the same time, I get it. I empathize with the idea of defending an actress whom you agree with. I mean, the thought could be this: if Patricia is “wrong” (and I agree with her) am I wrong? Am I exclusionary in MY thinking? I know I don’t mean to be, so neither can Patricia.
    It is a challenge to confront that people do not look at things the way you do and that people feel pain about things that you are totally okay with. But I believe all of us have the power to empathize, if we choose to. But of course, you can turn this around and say I should just empathize with Patricia. And there, we would have returned to the gist of her comments. That it is time for these “others” to fight for me. I get it. It is not a difficult point to understand. I just see it differently. How do you choose to respond to the difference?

  • Nicolay Bang

    A bit over the top, stop twisting every word and phrase like you are some sort of political correctness police.

  • mountaincoco

    Thank you! Ask Sojourner Truth.

    #AintIAWoman

  • Brian Williams

    Too much analysis. It was spur-of-the-moment, it maybe wasn’t the most eloquent or elegant phrasing, but obviously her heart was in the right place. There are real people to pick on in the world, real oppressors, and Patricia Arquette isn’t one of them.

  • sumthin_witty

    I don’t see why you’d think that Patricia is stating people now need to stand up for white women alone. Her words don’t imply that she is suggesting women of colour or gay people are in a group separate from her “all the women of America”, rather that all victims of oppression can fight together for ALL women. Also, why would you presume that lesbians don’t fall within the
    category of “ALL the gay people” and black women within “ALL the people
    of color”? Instead, I’d argue Patricia implies that all groups that seek equality can work for each other rather than as separate causes.

    It is actually divisive to assume that Patricia is ignorantly promoting only the cause of straight white women like herself. I can’t say for sure whether she was selfishly considering her own demographic but I’m willing to bet she wasn’t. I know of no reasonable feminist that considers black women or lesbians as outside the group of people they fight for. Instead, it’s the more passive mainstream that tends to overlook them to show its historical preference for straight white women.

    Andrea, unless you want to argue that that oppressed demographics should ‘stick to their own causes’ I think that you’re unnecessarily dismantling the unifying ‘call to arms’ of a woman speaking out for ALL women [admittedly rather Americentrically] simply because she didn’t take the time to show her recognition that other people face more discrimination than she does. The fight for equal rights should welcome allies from all walks of life arguing against all forms of oppression, and we should presume that white feminists [male and female] fight for the benefit of all as much as feminists of color [male and female] do.

    • Erica Daniels Tyson

      That’s not a rallying cry or unifying call to arms. She is saying we’ve done enough”for you”. Her message appeals to people who want to shift the focus – maybe away from something they are sick of hearing about in recent times. If someone told you it was time for you to….do anything, would you welcome it?

      • sumthin_witty

        I think the contention here is over the idea that standing up for all women necessitates a shift in focus away from more specifically oppressed groups when people of all genders, races and sexualities could simply be combining their efforts to seek equal treatment.

        Do you really believe that straight white feminists are so self-absorbed that they are “sick” of hearing about racial, homosexual and transgender issues? Almost all feminists are fighting for all these issues as they combat their own inequality. Patricia wasn’t saying that the fight against racial and homosexual discrimination was over in any way, merely that the fight for female equality wasn’t over, in spite of some people’s claims that women now receive equal treatment.

        If we all just look beyond our own predicament we can see that feminism is, as feminists have to often clarify, quite simply the struggle for equal rights for all, which is why everyone should consider themselves a feminist, just as all feminists should consider themselves opponents of homophobia and racism, as these are simply further examples of social inequality.

        • Snexas

          THIS

          • Andrew Paul Wood

            Indeed. The qualities of mercy are not strained.

  • kelly

    I think you may have taken what she was saying way too literally instead of seeing that the feminist movement is the same as civil rights and LGBT rights, but it is treated differently and we *women* need others from these other movements to step up and continue to fight for gender equality along with their other concerns. I was inspired because instead of gushing, prostrating, and being the perfect happy lady to have a shiny award, she made her speech important and unforgettable as did many of the other winners including best director. Just stop being unhappy with an imperfect speech and revel in the fact that she chose to make it.

  • Emmala Sparks Henry

    She erased bisexual Native Americans and Transgendered folks too. Damn, she couldn’t very well name every one. It is very easy to critique when you have the luxury of editing and considering before you “speak” from behind your keyboard without millions watching every keystroke and missed key or word. Sensitivity can give way to over-sensitivity .

  • kelly

    This article could be placed in the “epic fail” category as well…

  • Heather Bailey

    I understand the concept of intersectionality and it is incredibly important to the feminist movement that we take into account that the struggles of non-white non-heterosexual women are far greater than white heterosexual women. But I don’t believe the fact that Arquette used the word women without specifying types of women means anything. It’s a short speach and including all women as a whole doesn’t mean she doesn’t recognize intersectionality. She has a transgender sister named Alexis Arquette. Then when she goes into more details and specifies all women as well as men and people of color and gay people. I took her meaning to be people with in those groups that aren’t women.

    • SophieCT

      I agree with what you said, but to give the other point of view a fair hearing, it is also remotely possible that she means people in those groups who are women who have never used any of their volunteer time for women’s equality. If she did in fact mean that, then even though it stings, those sisters need to accept the truth.

  • Carolyn Filby Furman

    So few people articulate specificity as well as, say, Common, did last night. He was spectacular. Given the moment and the circumstances, at least she said something. Let’s not forget the provincialism you display by not bringing up our relative circumstances to those of the rest of the world. Get a grip.

    • bomber

      Thank you!

  • bomber

    If you really want to know who gets paid more than whom: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html

  • Alina Hernández

    This type of discussion is just stupid, I mean why do you care so much for the words and not for the content?. Everybody understood what she was trying to say. She’s not an expert on this subject and she talks from her experience, she didn’t have the time to write all the political correctness that should’ve had. Let alone, she’s just expressing the way she thinks, there’s no need to make a whole article to say what’s she’s doing wrong. I think political correctness is making us lost the true meaning of her speech.

    • minuialear

      Because words matter. Words comvey meaning and intent, and are also what creates the content of someone’s speech.

      And it’s not about being “politically correct”; it’s about expecting people to be precise about what they want to say, and to be aware of the connotation of their words (all of which are things we should strive for anyway, as educated people).

      • bomber

        It was an on-the-fly comment, jeeze….

        • minuialear

          An on-the-fly comment that shows that she hasn’t really thought much about the complexities of feminism, and other rights movements. Plenty of other celebrities or spokespeople talk about this stuff just fine, without needing prep time to remember not to marginalize swaths of people (Emma Watson, for one).

          • bomber

            No, it doesn’t show that at all; that’s your opinion. Comparisons are odious. Here’s an idea, tweet her and ask her what she really meant, don’t tell her.

          • minuialear

            Her words marginalize whether she meant them to or not. If she didn’t mean them to, then she was indeed ignorant of how to speak on the matter, because she wouldn’t have made the same mistake otherwise.

          • bomber

            I guess you would rather judge then ask. I have no idea what’s in the heart of PA but women arguing over equality for women is _____________(fill in the blank).

          • minuialear

            You misread what I said. I’m not saying that Arquette meant to harm others or is racist/homophobic, etc. I have no idea what her intent was. But regardless of her intent, her words marginalize. The same way heteronormative comments can marginalize, even when straight people do not mean to do so. If one doesn’t realize how his/her words can serve to marginalize, then (s)he is ignorant of the complications which arise when speaking about matters which relate to race and sexuality, as well as various other groups of people. If she’d like to speak generally about feminism, it would suit her to understand how certain ways of discussing feminist issues can be isolating (particularly if she does not mean to do so).

          • bomber

            I stick with my previous response.

          • bomber

            I’m a lesbian and didn’t feel marginalized. Gay men could indeed speak out more in support of women’s rights. As part of the LBGT community I have been disappointed for years that they haven’t. Now, tell me that I’ve marginalized gay men by giving you MY life’s experience.

          • SophieCT

            You chose to twist her words into a marginalizing manifesto. Is that what sisterhood means to you?

          • minuialear

            You choose to twist my words as if I am trying to launch some sort of attack on Arquette, when I merely point out the flaw with her phrasing, and the consequential implications of that flaw.

            Are you arguing that I am violating “sisterhood” just by virtue of noticing a flaw in how a woman expressed herself? Are you then required to accept everything I say, and not to question what I say, if I’m a feminist as well?

          • SophieCT

            The “consequential implications” are entirely fabricated. You are choosing to feel slighted by presenting her words in such as way as to support your argument without ever trying to consider her actual message. I am choosing not to buy into your delusion and I am challenging you, lest anyone here think that your petty complaining is helpful. It is not.

          • Snexas

            No no no, you felt marginalized when you heard her words. There’s a huge difference.

          • Snexas

            You know what they say about assumptions.

      • Snexas

        The problem is demanding that everyone speak perfectly all the time & that they know the history of every word in every language is an impossible task. Yes, there are people who use words maliciously to hurt people, but there are others who get attacked for this regularly who meant no harm.

        Also, there are those who disagree on which words are harmful & how they can be used. You act like all people in a group are monoliths. One section of a group may find a word offensive when another portion of that group does not. Who should we as a society side with?

        • minuialear

          We should strive to understand what our words mean, and how misspeaking can misconstrue what we mean to say. No more, no less.

          If people don’t let up on a scientist who wears a shirt with women in bikinis, because it’s easy for women to perceive that as objectification, even if that’s not what he was thinking when he wore the shirt, then I don’t see why they should let up on women (in this case, a straight white woman) who say something that can also easily be perceived as marginalizing people, either. Both are privilege issues.

          • Snexas

            It’s all fine & dandy to say it’s up to us to understand what words mean, but you’re missing my point. Words have multiple meanings & multiple uses. Even people within a group like black or gay may not agree what is offensive & what is not. Language is a living thing that has many facets.

          • minuialear

            Here are some analogies.

            N****r is a word that some black people despise and by which are deeply offended; for others, it’s just another word. It also now has multiple meanings and multiple uses, and is also not as offensive to some as it is to others. However, if a white guy says n****r, no one stops to say “Well hold on, maybe he doesn’t mean anything by it.” Even if the guy says n***a/n****r as he’s rapping to a Kanye song, or because his black friend Danny told him it was okay to say it, 9/10 people will tell him it’s not okay. It doesn’t matter if he means to be offensive or not. It doesn’t matter that there is a divide among black people as to whether it’s really offensive or not. Because despite the white guy’s completely innocent intentions, and the fact that he’s not racist/trying to be racist, AND even despite the fact that some black people don’t care about the word, what he’s saying is imbued with decades of oppression. This is why, more often than not, the white guy will be asked to be aware of that history when he says n***a/n****r, and to be aware of the possible negative reactions that will result from the word being used in that context.

            A similar issue with f****t and, say British people; British people asking for cigarettes obviously aren’t trying to be offensive by any means, but they will often be asked, nonetheless, to watch how they ask for a cigarette, while in a country which has used f*g as a slang term of oppression against homosexuals for decades. Same with the Portugese and the word “Negro.” Etc. No, not every black person cares if they’re called a Negro, and not every gay person cares if they are called a f*g, but by and large it doesn’t matter. People more often than not still eventually get told to pay attention to their use of words, particularly when the words have historically been used to oppress or marginalize others in this country.

            In other words, yes, words can have different meaning, and no, there is no guarantee that particular people in a group will be offended by a use of words which imply a particular meaning when you take into account decades of prior context. But there are plenty of examples of how people, despite all this, take the time to consider the past (and the present), and how people have been mistreated and marginalized, and how words have contributed to that. And, learning that, they more often than not change the way they express themselves, to respect that history.

            I don’t see the harm in informing Arquette of the same (that her words echoed decades of white/straight/cis women marginalizing the accomplishments and contributions of WoC/gay/trans women, even if that was the furthest thing from her intentions). Words can still perpetuate old ills, even if they’re not used with the intent to do so. Not everyone has the privilege of being ignorant of that past (and present).

          • Snexas

            Excuse me, where did ms Arquette say any of those evil words? She didn’t! What I’m talking about are words that don’t so obviously offend 95% of humanity & you’re willfully ignoring that. You’re twisting her speech because you want to see her as an enemy. Why I’m not sure.

          • minuialear

            Excuse me, where did I say that she did say any of them? Did you read anything past the second line?

          • Snexas

            Yes I read your post. I’m saying your analogy doesn’t fit this situation.

          • minuialear

            You actually said I accused PA of saying racial slurs, which indicated you didn’t actually read the post. If you did, it would have been obvious that I was providing analogies, not making accusations.

            So please actually read the post, then explain how the analogy doesn’t fit. Thanks.

          • Snexas

            I already did explain. You obviously just don’t agree. Goodbye.

          • minuialear

            You didn’t explain why you felt the analogy did not fit. You claimed I attributed words to PA that I didn’t attribute to her, and then you said “your analogy doesn’t fit this situation” without any explanation of why the analogy I provided does not fit the situation.

            But you clearly don’t want to explain, so whatever. I’m dropping this too.

      • Alina Hernández

        I agree with you, but precision can happen when you’re writing and when you have a perfect speech because you’re an expert in the subject. She’s not an expert in sociology or anthropology, and she’s not giving a lecture of human rights, she’s just expresing herself.
        It’s like if we were hunting all the people in our way for not expressing correctly about a sociological subject.
        Moreover everyday a new way to define a social group erupts. It’s impossible to follow all those words. I mean at least she tried.

        • merielle

          You seriously believe her remarks were just off the cuff? She was the odds-on favorite to win the Oscar. She prepared. We know she prepared, because when she was onstage, she was reading from a piece of paper. The problem is that she didn’t do a very good job of preparing. I’m happy to assume goodwill and that she did her best. But that doesn’t win her immunity from criticism. When you have a megaphone that will literally reach billions of people, that comes with responsibility. There’s a century and a half of history of straight, cis, white feminists excluding, marginalizing, and throwing under the bus everyone who isn’t just like them. Lots of folks have bruises around it. It hurts when you poke bruises. If you’re going to take on the public mantle of feminism like that, it is irresponsible and foolish not to take the time to educate yourself about that history.

          She could have gotten some help. She could have contacted someone with more experience at public speaking and a better grasp of feminist history than she has at any of the nonprofits she works with or any of the ones they work with. I guaran-damn-tee you they would have been *thrilled* to help her with her speech. She didn’t do that, and she stuck her foot in her mouth. She’s on the hook for that.

          What I hope is that she will set a good example for other white feminists, listen to the criticism, get educated about what was problematic in what she said, and do better next time.

    • Snexas

      I agree with you, but unfortunately, not everyone seems to have understood her. There seem to be quite a few people who thinks Patricia hates people of color & gay people.

      • Dana

        Yes Snexas, there does seem to be some people who think that of Ms Arquette. Incredibly stupid people.

    • bomber

      Alina, I love this sentance of yours because it cuts to the chase: “..I mean why do you care so much for the words and not for the content?” So well put.

  • Ali Wilkin

    Speaking as a white woman, the problem with white feminism (yes, it really *is* a thing) is that it wants equality with white cis straight patriarchy, which is what creates the oppression of black /of colour/LGBTQ/ people in the first place. Add white saviour syndrome (which is what Arquette was articulating) and you have a white feminism that sees fighting oppression as a bartering system, one which fails to dismantle that system because it wants to be equal to it(i.e., a part of it). I still don’t understand why so much white feminism is about seeking equality with the very system which oppresses it in the first place. Until white feminism (and I do include myself in that) is able to understand and overcome that, it’s going to demand as Arquette has done here.

    • Snexas

      Are you claiming Patricia believes in “white feminism” or are you saying all white feminists are trying to support the white/cis/straight/patriarchy? If it’s the latter I seriously disagree with you. If it’s the former, then I say prove it.

      • Ali Wilkin

        I am saying neither. I am saying that was demonstrated in Patricia Arquettes comments is common to a feminism that lacks self-reflection and self-awareness. And as a white feminist, I am saying that *we* need to be much more aware of what will (and will not) dismantle the very structures of oppression which lead to my pay cheque not equalling a mans, and my black/of colour/LGBTQ sisters pay cheques not even equalling mine.

        • Snexas

          So in effect you are saying she subscribes to a feminism that supports those structures. How do you know this? Do you know her? Have you asked her?

          • Ali Wilkin

            When feminism issues demands of black/of colour/LGBTQ sisters and brothers *on the basis of what white feminism has supposedly done for them* – as has happened here – that is a feminism that will support white cis patriarchy. Even if it thinks it is not. Do you personally know Ms Arquette? Do *you* know her well enough to say, categorically, that she *doesn’t* support those structures?

          • Snexas

            No, I’m saying instead of attacking someone in a random forum, maybe ask her via her Twitter or something if she meant what you claim she meant.

            For example, PA has a trans sister I seriously doubt she’s unaware of LGBTQ issues. Or maybe I give people too much benefit of the doubt.

          • Dana

            That’s ridiculous. Just because Patricia Arquette is white, does not make her a symbol of, or speaker for, white feminism. Just because she said she feels that other marginalized people should stand with women in this matter, does not mean anyone is ‘demanding it is done on the the basis of what white feminism has supposedly done for them’.

            If you don’t know that Ms Arquette personally supports or doesn’t support those structures then you should shut up about it until you do know.

        • Snexas

          It seems you forgot the IA at the end of LGBTQIA. I think you could use some self reflection & self awareness. See how easy it is to twist someone’s words?

    • bomber

      Great. Bottom line: In this reality of this world’s economic system now, I want to get paid the same. At some point, if we all want to get together and redesign our social-economic systems, I’m game. But until then can I get an equal paycheck? I’ve got bills to pay…

      • Ali Wilkin

        As a single parent, I would love to be paid the same too. But I am not throwing anyone under a bus to get there, and demanding that black/of colour/LGBTQ brothers and sisters (who are dying, never mind being paid even less than I) ‘owe’ me solidarity – on the basis of a liberation they still don’t have, and wouldn’t be because of any ‘allyship’ even if they had it – certainly isn’t going to get me, or them, to that equal pay cheque.

        • bomber

          I didn’t “see” anyone get thrown under the bus. Look, I probably have different life experiences than you. For example, I remember being a lesbian in SF in the 80’s and we were basically outcasts to gay men. Not allowed in their clubs, bars, etc. and they were the only ones that had places to socialize. Then came AIDS and a lot of us helped take care of them and that’s when we started to become accepted in the community; it’s no secret to anyone in the gay community. So, my life experience leads me to say gay men could do more and step up and speak out for women’s rights. According to you, I think, you’d say I was throwing them and under the bus, whereas I’m just speaking from my life’s experiences and at 63 I’ve had a few from being shot at by the national guard at Kent State in ’70 to the earthquake in SF in ’89.

          My sincere wish would be that all people join together to get civil rights laws passed and protected from altercation.

        • Dana

          You do realize it is possible to say it’s time for all the oppressed should band together without actually demanding it happen, right? Also, you do know about the whole ‘strength in numbers’ thing? So yeah, if the entire gay community, all men that love women, and all women banded together to demand change, it just may get you that equal pay check that we are all looking for.

          Just a thought.

    • SophieCT

      This working class Lesbian just doesn’t have the time you have for that level of “depth.” How’s about we get equal pay first so we can all have the luxury of the debate you want to have?

      • Ali Wilkin

        And I am a working class, bi, single parent. I also know my history, and know what happens when you *don’t* work for that first. Just because I struggle to pay my bills and feed my kids, that doesn’t mean I have any excuse not to think.

  • ajlzoier

    Do people use words like “interesectionality” because they sincerely believe it will make the world a better place, or simply because it makes them feel superior?

    • Arekushieru

      Do people avoid use of words like intersectionality because they sincerely believe it will make the the world a better place, or simply because it makes them feel superior? FIFY

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

      I don’t use terms like that because my vocabulary isn’t as fancy. But this is and impressive concept to learn, along with erasure.

  • J.D. Gibaurd

    Suppose you read the following announcement: “The local humane society is having a fundraiser, and we’d like to invite animal lovers, music lovers, and everyone who loves good bbq to attend.” Would you assume that the speaker is:

    A) saying “Everyone is welcome!”
    or
    B) A total jerk who believes there are three distinct, exclusive groups of people (people who love animals but not music or bbq, people who love music but not bbq or animals, etc) and who really believes that not all of these types really deserve to be admitted to the event.

    Now, your bonus question:

    Which kind of blogger tends to get the most page clicks:

    a) those who have reasonable, intelligent responses to cultural events
    or
    b) those who are willing to twist any event or situation into an indignant rant about their favorite political cause, be it left or right wing.

    • Susie from Philly

      You using BBQ as an example is a microaggression against the people who love animals enough not to eat them!

      • J.D. Gibaurd

        Your thinking reflects prejudice and anti-veggie bias: why would you assume vegans and vegetarians do not bbq?

        • Susie from Philly

          Upon reflection, I see that you are right. I will report for reeducation at a time convenient for you.

      • Snexas

        omg I love you

    • bomber

      Really, BBQ and the Humane Society? How oppressive and ignorant of the plight of animals.

    • Arekushieru

      Wow, you just stated exactly what Andrea was saying as if it was something completely different…. Oh, the IRONY. After all, in THIS post, and in one of the posts you made BELOW, you not only reported that privileged groups NOT being compared to marginalized groups is okay but that acting as if marginalized groups are privileged is NOT, as well, something Andrea was ALSO writing about. Oops. Or, are you, like the majority of the posters on this board unable to read, as well? But, if you aren’t, why are you responding to something you clearly cannot read, then?

      Also, as for the answer to your bonus question, which I’m pretty sure you are concluding is b, you’re not NEARLY as clever as you think you are being. After all, YOU are the one who’s getting upset over a blog that you, yourself, are claiming is getting indignantly upset over one’s favourite political cause. So, one, you are doing the exact same thing that you CLAIM the blogger is doing (which makes your bias clear, marginalized people must not ever get upset, because it has ONLY ever been the prerogative of the privileged) and, two, therefore proving that you are fighting to defend your own little right wing cause (meaning your little patch of patriarchy, since right wingers are the only ones who have actual causes that are generally formed to defend said patriarchy).

      So, it’s funny (but not surprising) that the ones who are actually making out these blogs to be nothing more than an indignant rant about their favourite political cause (meaning yourselves, of course) are the ones who are leading the onslaught of people in order to give this kind of blogger the most page clicks and that they (you) haven’t considered that we just MIGHT understand that that was their goal all along, to assert that a faulty premise is true (in this case, that this blog is nothing more than an indignant rant about it’s favourite political cause) thereby making the resulting conclusion true (in this case, that they tend to get the most page clicks, with a helping hand from your little friends, of course, right?).

      Oops.

      • Dana

        Arekushieru:

        “I have nothing of any validity to say! And clearly nothing to do but troll! I will just accuse everyone of not having reading comprehension because otherwise they will see how ridiculous my lame arguments are!!!

        You’re not clever! I’m clever! Why just look at me taking up three paragraphs to write bullshit! That’s what you call clever!!! Oh wait! I must put in my key terms, ‘Patriarchy!’, ‘Marginalized’, ‘right wingers’, or else how will anyone know what my agenda is?!

        I understand things! I understand everything! Everyone else is too stupid to see the truth!!! Faulty premise! Indignant rant!!!

        Oops!”

  • SophieCT

    Arquette was asking for intersectionality.
    Je suis Patricia.

    • bomber

      Moi aussi!

      • Andrew Paul Wood

        Oui!

    • Arekushieru

      That’s insulting. And proves that you really are fighting for the patriarchy. After all, Je Suis Charlie defends the patriarchal hegemony, since Muslims are a VERY marginalized group in France. Oops.

      • robotsrule

        See that’s why feminists get a bad rap. Because they would rather choose sides with backwards anti-women, anti-gay, anti Semites because they’re also alledgedly marginalized Muslims. Muslims do get a bad rap in the western world. But you know who gets a bad rap in predominantly Muslim countries? Jews and Christians. They get their heads cut off. And gay people get hung in Iran. There are plenty of problems with the western world but the pathologies of the Middle East are not wholly our doing. They didn’t learn female circumcision from the French patriarchal hegemony as you put it. They came up with it on their own. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that being a minority in any given place equals virtue and righteousness. Emerging from a four year institution with a gender studies degree at the age of 24 doesn’t provide a complete picture of the world. In fact no one actually understands how the whole world works. Its just too complicated. It’s a system of competing interests, ecosystems, geopolitics, religion, biology, values, etc. it’s silly to think that one area of study rooted in a critique of late 19th century industrial capitalism has all the answers to how humans relate to one another…furthermore, Charlie Hebdo represent freedom of expression. If you don’t believe in it, especially for speech you hate,then you belong with the born again Christians and not the left.

      • Snexas

        Why do some people act like supporting women’s rights, free speech & religious freedom is a mutually exclusive thing?

      • Dana

        Hey dumbass. Je Suis Charlie defends free speech. If you’re going to troll at least know what the fuck you are talking about. What’s the matter? Didn’t you take your medication today? Brain on backwards? Get it together.

  • Joseph P Nelson

    Sorry, Andrea. But this is ridiculous. I never expected such a nitpicking and divisive article from anyone at this site. You have persuaded be to unsubscribe from the email letter.

    • Arekushieru

      Wow, nitpicking and divisive? You also mean we should also learn to not hurt the poor widdle menz, like yourself, feelings just because we’re women, otherwise we’re being divisive and nitpicking, then, right? So much misogyny, internalized and otherwise, and patriarchy supporters, internalized and otherwise, acknowledged or not, who remain uncensored on this thread yet have the NERVE to call ANYONE but themselves as nitpickers and divisive…? THAT is what makes ME want to unsubscribe from the e-mail letter, so I don’t meet more entitled a$$e$ like yourself.

      • Dana

        Wow. It’s totally like Arekushieru is looking in the mirror while typing, right?!

  • SophieCT

    Someone might want to tell the author of this post that Patricia Arquette’s sister is trans and Patricia was a fierce advocate for her and the issue. Somehow that fact got past the vast fact checking department.

    The author might also want to check out Arquette’s charity work on her Wikipedia page.

    • Snexas

      Yeah I thought it was odd people are attacking her LGBT cred considering her family.

    • Arekushieru

      So? That last isn’t relevant. Seriously, stop being whiny hypocrites.

      As for the first part, why can’t we tell Patricia Arquette by the SAME logic that she should be responsible for her speech. She SPECIFICALLY equated the LGB communities as those who should be supporting WOMEN, not ‘other’ women. And who are usually included in those communities? Transsexual people. So, responsibility for the marginalized but not the privileged, once again. So sad to see so many ‘unwitting’ (in quotes because I’m beginning to doubt that part) followers of the patriarchy on here, though.

      Remember, too, people, either she was making remarks that came off as disjointed, disorganized, hurried and nervous because they came off the cuff, unscripted and were publicly televised in front of a nerve wracking global audience OR she has had experience in advocating fiercely for others through her family and charity advocacy. You can’t have it BOTH ways, tbsvfs. You people should really learn to put your heads together and come up with one script before speaking next time, though, because you are really doing a bang up job of exposing your TRUE motivations, at this very moment. DARN, eh?

      • SophieCT

        God, I have never seen people contort themselves into pretzels to support a ridiculous argument, such as you have. The fact is that women, all women, have always supported every other cause on earth–white women, black women Latino women, gay women–all women because their babies (including the male ones) have been white, black, Latino, gay, end so on. She is saying it is time, for all of the groups that we women HAVE ALREADY BEEN intersectional with help us out. It’s about time. Because when women do well, everyone does well. When women have land to farm, the family gets fed. When women have money, their whole families get housed. When women have education, the families get taught. All people: every color, religion, orientation, etc. were born of a woman.

        Because YOU and others like you posting here choose to be divisive and imagining slight at every turn is why women are still the largest oppressed group on earth.I believe whatever is passing for feminist scholarship these days is useless.

      • Dana

        Allow me to translate Arekushieru’s above comment as clarity is not in her wheelhouse:

        “So? It’s not relevant unless I SAY it’s relevant!!!

        Patricia Arquette should take responsibility for the things I project into her speech! She said the LGBT community should stand with women for equality and that is wrong! Marginalized people like women and LGBT’s should not be called upon to stand strong together! If you don’t agree with me that is PATRIARCHY!!! You don’t even know that it is PATRIARCHY until I tell you!!!

        Remember, Ms Arquette took a chance and she didn’t have an eloquent and perfectly written speech and that is wrong! She has been advocating for the LGBT community and it should have been a perfect speech! You can’t have it both ways! No one can advocate for women AND the LGBT community properly because I SAY SO!!!

        Everyone is else in the world is stupid but me!!! Everyone else’s motivation is wrong but they can’t see it until I TELL THEM SO!! I tell you at this very moment! DARN, eh?”

        You’re welcome.

  • Melinda Kaye

    Her speech was great — women’s wage, benefits & maternity leave in the work place is a HUGE issue — doesn’t matter if you’re a black lesbian, a latin single mom or an asian female college grad — wake the hell – stop dissecting and assuming — U sound ignorant as hell

    • Arekushieru

      No, you sound ignorant as hell. Unable to read for comprehension. SHE was the one who positioned women against the people of colour community and lgbtqqi communities. Really, people, reading ISN’T that difficult if you have the wherewithal to post a response on a blog you’ve READ.

      • Melinda Kaye

        You ridiculous.
        Are there no women who are gay ?
        Black lesbians ?
        She put nobody against anyone. Use your brain. There are so many women who are fighting for rights. ESPECIALLY single mothers who are raising kids alone because they were left by deadbeat men

      • Dana

        Nope, that’s what your ignorant ass is trying to do. Really Arekushieru, get a job or something to occupy your time. Thinking obviously isn’t your forte.

  • James

    If anyone wants to check her Twitter she has pretty much stated, at this point, that she agrees with you on this, that women of color are the most effected by wage inequality, that she has long been a champion for the transgender community and clarified that by women she means “all” color-gender combinations possible. That’s pretty humble, seeing as how everyone just wants to sling mud at her without giving her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her sincerity and commitment.

    • Snexas

      No going to the source would be too too easy. People would rather think of her as a rich, dumb, white, feminist.

    • Arekushieru

      Uh, sweetie pie, this blog was probably written well in advance of the comments she made on Twitter and before the posting of the actual blog, considering that it was written at LEAST four hours before you wrote your OWN post. Also, before she had done that, she had also doubled DOWN on her comments. And, tell me, were those later comments of hers made by her during a popular, well-advertised, well-watched entertainment show or ELSEWHERE and were they made AFTER she had been called out on it or before? Guess the fact checking you’re talking about is something YOU thought you should be doing, otherwise, you’re just self-projecting. Or, I guess, someone else is a hypocrite, here, since they can’t STAND checking things but demand everyone else do so for them. Oops, too bad.

      • James

        I think that you may be doing quite a bit of self-projecting on here yourself. Again, I don’t know with certainty Patricia’s motives, (maybe she’s the worst racist in the world, worse than David Duke) but the way to find that out isn’t always done best through a megaphone. You seem to really enjoy going at people with a certain cruel glee, I’m already in the struggle so I don’t need a lecture, and if your always busy knocking others down it can take away from trying to help other people stand upright.

      • Snexas

        Nothing says condescension like calling someone sweetie pie in a disagreement.

  • Andrew Paul Wood

    Are women of colour or gay/bi/queer/trans women are no longer women or something? I don’t quite follow your logic. When did “women” start to only refer to cishet white females? What am I missing?

    • Arekushieru

      Obviously, you can’t read. When someone claims that lgbtqqi communities should be supporting women from now on, you REALLY think someone meant that to be inclusive? WOW. Reading comprehension FAIL.

      • Andrew Paul Wood

        Hmmm. Your comment doesn’t really match the experiences of my lesbian and trans female friends who actually experience considerable descrimination by cis gay men within our community. There’s also more than a few TERF gay women out there too, to whom the message could apply. Maybe you need to get out more.

      • Dana

        Yes, what could be less inclusive then inviting others to stand with you?! Wow. You have really shown us all the light! Lol!

  • bomber

    Let’s give Patricia a big hand…..she got all of us bickering, um talking, about equal rights for women!

    • Arekushieru

      No, the only ones bickering, are you. So childish, but so expected. AW.

  • Rick Diehl

    Wow, are you one whiny person. Can’t just accept a call for equality in pay for what it is and move on. You’ve got to change it into platitudes toward privilege. Nothing like taking a person who is clearly on the side of inclusion and marginalizing them. Nice job dipshit.

    • Arekushieru

      No, YOU are the whiny person. Not surprising, considering that you’re male, and the other posters don’t recognize that they are the ones who would be supporting positions like you probably would be if it came to defending the feelings of the widdle men. After all, if it came to the point where male feminist allies were being called out for something, if you hold the same position as you and your unwitting followers do, you would be telling women to sit down and shut up because we should all be standing in SOLIDARITY and shouldn’t be hurting the feelings of poor widdle MEN, so Richard Dawkins and people LIKE him would LOVE you, and those same unwitting followers of yours, sadly. Bai bai whiny hypocrite.

      • Rick Diehl

        It’s all my hurt male feelings? That is just adorable.

  • DavidHarley

    All too often we have heard black [male] activists brush aside the feminist claims of black women. Something to be dealt with after the revolution, as Marxists used to say.

    So too, at various times, we have heard misogyny from gay activists and a lack of interest in lesbian issues from feminists. Decades of hostility towards trans people has been especially noticeable. Having achieved much, one can see suburban gay people turning away from other queer people, as was predicted years ago.

    In a world of identity politics, there simply isn’t any reason why people should feel empathy for the struggle of others. Building coalitions in the US, as has been done elsewhere, is a monumental task.

    • juanaguilar

      Interesting defense of Arquette, Mr. Harley. You realize that if what you say regarding empathy is true, then her whole tirade was an utter waste of breath. I mean, why should I as a Latino male care about anything but Latino male problems? Oh that’s right, I’m also a human being…

      I’m not suggesting that it isn’t common for people to ignore the plight of groups to which they do not belong: it is. I’m saying that we (humans) have to try to see others as fellow humans. It’s a mind-blowing notion, I know.

  • Kate

    You should be trashing them all. But any woman is fair game, especially one who speaks truth to power. John Legend deliberately ignored incarcerated Black Women. Moore only spoke about depression. What about bipolars and schizophrenics? They commit suicide too. And Gonzalez Inarittu had love only for Mexicans, and brushed off every other nationality.
    Bashing women is a National Sport, and now you have earned your letter. Congratulations for your spectacular leap onto the trashing bandwagon, you cowardly, hypocritical meme toter.
    By the way, are you sure you’re getting paid at the same rate as your male coworkers?

    • Arekushieru

      Trashing all of WHO? Seriously, if you don’t understand how privilege works, don’t talk about it.

      And, are you SERIOUSLY arguing that because we are focusing on the specific comments made by Patricia Arquette that we should extrapolate this to every other circumstance that resembles the comments she made, while complaining that everyone shouldn’t be extrapolating the comments that Arquette made to white feminists because we are focusing on one specific comment. No, sweetie pie, YOU are the cowardly, hypocritical meme toter. Yes, the SAME meme that implies women should just sit down and shut up because we don’t want to hurt men’s widdle feewings.

  • robotsrule

    Let’s be honest here. This is professional umbrage taking at its worst. If you’re not going to have solidarity with people that are on your side how do you expect to defeat the scumbags in white corporate America and the 1%? In case you were unaware of your surroundings, the bad guys are winning this war everywhere. There’s nothing they love more than getting the left arguing amongst themselves about instances of in-articulation and not adequately empathizing with every permutation of oppressed classification. This movement should be about getting all working people together to get what’s rightfully theirs. Arquette is coming from a good place and you’re keeping score instead of making common cause. This is why we never get anywhere.

    • Arekushieru

      Seriously, everyone on this thread that I’ve read so far is so freaking obtuse. How does one expect to defeat the scumbags if you stand in solidarity with other scumbags? The roots of ALL of this is the patriarchy. So, what everyone on here SEEMS to be asking is that we ignore the problematic roots that developed because of the patriarchy within our OWN midst and expect us to be able to take tangible steps against other patriarchal systems? I guess solidarity is only good if you happen to be a white feminist. If you’re a black feminist or any other type of feminist there’s no solidarity for you.

      • robotsrule

        Unless you think the 99% are all scumbags and part of the patriarchy then they are not the root of the problem. Even the patriarchy is only a theoretical term used to describe a system. Off shore bank accounts are not theoretical. Corporate share holders are not theoretical. Systemic change means addressing the actual machinations of power and that requires lots and lots of people? Not half of 1% of the population. Women as a group represent more than 50% of the population. Add in the men that are not total scumbags and you have a 2/3 majority to actually get things changed in a substantive way. But if you want to keep infighting until the movement is 100% pure, the 1% are not going to lose any sleep over it.

      • James

        We’re not trying to ignore a problem, we’re trying to discuss whether or not there is one in this case, to the extent that it’s being flaunted as such. If you are in any kind of social justice movement I think you’ll find that the way you are communicating isn’t going to be rewarded all of the time, presumably if people are engaged in struggle they are in solidarity, but solidarity doesn’t equal complete conformity to some one member of the groups idea of what that should look like. If there are disagreements activists usually (not always) tend to try and work them out because they know that we are all valuable to the larger movement, I mean look at what we are up against, we are outnumbered. So burning bridges is counter-intuitive.

  • Santiago Vargas Niño

    Did Patricia Arquette call others to stand by white heterosexual women alone or is that something you’re assuming because she’s a white heterosexual woman? How can you call for equality and question the expression of that very ideal just because it wasn’t phrased in your preferred way? This article is based on personal assumptions made by the author and it’s saddening. What evidence do you have to support the claim that her words were anything else than a general call for equality? Why do you insert caveats that weren’t in Patricia Arquette’s words? I’m sure it serves your agenda, but you should try and go beyond bludgeoning a woman simply because she called for wage equality. That simply makes no sense at all.

    • Arekushieru

      Hmm, but it’s okay for anyone to assume something on the part of what black women, transwomen, lesbians, other women of colour, etc… are saying? Pretty much pointed out the whole hypocrisy on this entire thread, there, Mr. Nino.

      • Santiago Vargas Niño

        1. It’s Vargas Niño
        2. Who assumed anything about that? She was referring to _one_ issue: wage inequality between men and women. That is true regarding white women, black women, latinas and a myriad other women. Isn’t it? She might have referred to groups that have received public support in their struggle for equality lightly, but that doesn’t mean she’s depriving them of their voice or assuming what’s good for them. Geez.

      • Santiago Vargas Niño

        1. It’s Vargas Niño
        2. Who assumed anything about that? She was referring to _one_ issue: wage inequality between men and women. That is true regarding white women, black women, latinas and a myriad other women. Isn’t it? She might have referred to groups that have received public support in their struggle for equality lightly, but that doesn’t mean she’s depriving them of their voice or assuming what’s good for them. Geez.

      • Santiago Vargas Niño

        1. It’s Vargas Niño
        2. Who assumed anything about that? She was referring to _one_ issue: wage inequality between men and women. That is true regarding white women, black women, latinas and a myriad other women. Isn’t it? She might have referred to groups that have received public support in their struggle for equality lightly, but that doesn’t mean she’s depriving them of their voice or assuming what’s good for them. Geez.

      • Dana

        No one did assume something not he part of black women, trams women, lesbians, or other women of color, least of all Ms Arquette.

        Projecting your issues into another’s statement doesn’t make it so. The ‘hypocrisy’ pointed to on this thread and in this ‘article’ is entirely made up and idiots have bought into it.

  • Arekushieru

    Tone policing, now? When you ask a marginalized group to speak more softly under ANY circumstance (i.e. asking the privileged groups to speak more softly or not, the latter of which being what is ACTUALLY happening, here) you are AUTOMATICALLY marginalizing them further. After all, that’s what they HAVE been doing for YEARS, which means you are essentially diminishing their struggles and frustrations, partly by equating them with yours, because you, yourself, HAVE only dealt with minimal frustration compared to theirs and thus, found them a lot easier to ignore. That means, because of YOUR experiences you are expecting them to do the same. And that has NEVER been the goal of the patriarchy, EVER, right?

    • James

      Look, not that it will matter in the slightest to you, since it seems like you are on quite a tear here, but I am an indigenous person of color (Taino Indian) who also grew up in the worst poverty imaginable, I was homeless as a kid at one point when my family fell into even deeper poverty, so see, you presume to know what my struggle has been and I could do the same thing to you, but I won’t, because that would be a contradiction of what I’m trying to say. You may also be a minority who has experienced extreme inhumane levels of poverty and discrimination (my family definitely experienced their share) so we disagree, but the difference in our disagreement is that while I have been through enough in my lifetime that would cause me to make sweeping generality’s, I’ve come to learn that the world is a bit more nuanced than that. And I do plenty about the things I don’t like, besides writing responses under an article, I was in Occupy Wall Street, I occupied, I encamped, slept outside wall street, got clothes and food and medical supplies for the homeless, my focus is on the homeless and I practice what I preach, yes there is patriarchy, but there is more than one way to address it. I am assuming that you in your own way do the good that you can in the world to effect the change that you want to see, because while you’ve attacked my experience, (I’ve been through worse) it has in no way hardened my heart.

      • Snexas

        Thanks for sharing your story James. I’ve appreciated your comments in this forum.

        • James

          Thanks, I appreciate that.

    • Dana

      When you ask a person to lower their voice it’s usually because they are screaming and who wants to listen to that?

      Now you know.

  • Dana

    Wow. Ms Grimes, you have certainly taken Ms Arquettes speech completely out of context and managed to use it to further your own agenda. Bravo. Is this what passes for writing on this site or were you just seeking click bait? Likely both, but let’s move this along, . . .

    When someone uses the term ‘women’, they quite clearly mean ALL WOMEN. So there goes your first point right out the window. Ms Arquette did not say ‘white women’ or even refer to a race of women, she just said ‘women’, and you choose to take it as ‘white women’. Not just click baiting but race baiting we see. Hope you’re proud of yourself.

    Calling on the gay community, men that love women – which may or may not include some men in the gay community -, and people of color ( who may also be gay and/or may or may not love women ), – you take umbrage with this why? Are these not communities that women, – obviously not ALL women, but many women -, have fought for in the past? Are you really saying it is unfair to ask your fellow down trodden to rise up with you against those that oppress? So I guess what you are saying is that straight women should not fight for the rights of gay women and so forth? Nope? Didn’t think so.

    Yeah, we could all right now be demanding equal pay for all women, but no, we had to come to this bump in the road you chose to install in order to derail the fight. You must be proud.

    • Arekushieru

      Ugh, you’re another one who is unable to read for comprehension I see. And telling these groups to help support women because they fought for their rights CLEARLY implies that, no, she is NOT including all women when she used the term women. Or are you SERIOUSLY trying to say that she is somehow using women as a blanket term, yet not LGBTQQI? You supporters of patriarchy’s hypocrisy know no bounds, I guess. And, NO, not every woman necessarily IS including all women when they use the phrase. Oops?

      The women in these groups are more marginalized than your typical white woman feminist. Expecting them to support women who have typically been privileged over them IS, as Andrea WAS SAYING, believing that these women owe their more privileged counterparts something. And THIS, when, NO, not every white feminist HAS been fighting for their rights? I guess you forgot the suffragette movement was very racist. Perhaps you should take a remedial course in history, before responding, next time, too?

      Also, please tell me what reality you live in, that likes to so PRETEND that the ones who are being INCLUSIVE are the ones who are a) being nitpicky and divisive (as other commenters have said) and/or b) the ones who are installing the bump in the road to derail the fight (as YOU like to so falsely outline it), so I can avoid it. It comes too close to reminding me of the anti-choice world and medieval times, when the patriarchy reigned, after all.

      You must be SO proud of yourself for living there.

      Oops?

      • Dana

        Wow. Speak of reading comprehension fail. Are you truly trying to argue that when someone says, “It’s time for women to be paid and treated equally’, that by ‘women’ they DO NOT mean the females of the species?! That’s incredible. Perhaps you could give us all a lesson in what is meant by the term ‘sheep’. Does it only mean some sheep? All sheep? Sheep AND cows?

        This backwards theory of yours that by mentioning other groups dealing with inequality therefore shows some sort of separatist agenda is just plain DUMB. Beyond that, it shows how very much both you and the author of this crap article seek any crevice with which to further your backwards nonsesnse.

        I live in the reality where when someone says, ‘Women are paid less than men for doing the same job’, I am not the idiot that will immediately start screaming, “WOMEN doesn’t mean ALL WOMEN!!! This is an outrage! PATRIARCHY!!! WHITE FEMINISM!!!”

        Nope. I’m the one that says, “Absolutely. Equality for all. Now. Let’s get to work.”

        Very proud thanks for asking.

  • Arekushieru

    Yes, yes, I am aware that people have responded to me and that many of them are probably from the patriarchal ‘feminists’ that I was replying to. But, see, *I* am the one who thinks that whatever is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Unfortunately, they do not. I say that because I will not be responding back to them, because, while they whine about how other people are so easily offended, and how it clearly does not apply to them, because they must respond to everything that offends their sensibilities, of course (thereby proving me RIGHT, as well, but that’s another matter), I don’t make a big deal out of how others are so easily offended, NOR do I respond to everyone to let them know how offended *I* am. So, have AT it, you ‘feminists’, you.

    • Snexas

      You responded angrily to multiple people in this thread who you disagree with so you obviously are offended.

  • http://communityvillage.us/ Glenn Robinson

    If White women can not get White men to pay them equally, guess how bad the pay disparity is to non-cis-white women.

  • D. Watkins

    Just curious if Andrea Grimes and everyone else upset about Arquette’s speech are equally upset at John Legend’s lack of intersectionality??? He only mentioned Black men in his speech, and never once suggested that Black women (or other women of color) face appalling levels of incarceration. Seems only fair that if we’re going to call out Arquette, we also call out John Legend for failing to include women of color…

  • McJana

    Personally, I think Patricia Arquettes speech was in need od a PR edit for the reason mentioned. I interpreted the spirit of it: that she meant the various humans who were fighting for the civil rights of people of color, LGBT marriage and all those male feminists who may still be silent…to all support female equality, particularly in the form of equal pay. Personally, I believe all oppression is related (of humanity, animals and the earth) and there are groups of activists out there who do as well. In my city they band together to march to put pressure on a judge to indict a murdering police officer, next monthe for pro choice, march against Monsanto in May (against gmo and pesticides which harm humans, animals and the earth) and for animals rights to live free in the wild, not imprisoned (while also encouraging organic veganism). I think Patricia Arquettes language was unfortunate and I think she was simply asking for solidarity.

  • Sophie Cat

    Well god damn – can’t NOBODY hold their mouth just right these days, can they? Y’all the only ones who know how, I guess.
    So WHITE women unite for equal pay then, how’s that – is that better?

    Fuck it.

  • Silvana

    I’m a lesbian and I didn’t take it AT ALL like you said. I was thrilled she mentioned wage equality. let’s stop nitpicking and maybe take her excitement into consideration. thanks (: oh and I don’t need you or anyone else to speak for me and say how offended I supposedly am.

  • Lisa

    I feel like the author is bending over backwards to pick apart Arquette’s statements and put words in her mouth that she never said. She never said that the only groups that exist are women, men, gay people, and people of color or that there’s no overlap between the groups. In fact, just the opposite. She was saying we should all work for human rights and civil rights for everyone, that one group’s oppression affects all of us, whether we belong to that group or not. So, “all the women in America” (not just the white women or the women of color) should care about the wage gap, as should the men. Just like straight people marched and supported gay rights and still today support Marriage Equality (she never said the struggle was over). And white folks marched in the 60s for civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans and are still marching today against injustices in Ferguson and other places. She’s saying that even if that struggle is not yours, you should care, because it is. It’s the author who is trying to divide these groups and put them against each other.

  • chrissy9848

    Women are half the Universe. We are all races and sexual orientations, If you aren’t one of us you have a Mother ,Wife, Sister ..Everyone should be in this fight ..There are no victims here ..it’s a win win for all Families

  • Cantgetfooledagain

    I honestly think women are their own worst enemies and until we stop parsing everyone’s words and actions, we are going to make even less progress than we have…

  • Lisa

    I’m really angry and disappointed that Andrea Grimes is pitting women (and all people) against each other like this. Grimes says, “There are four groups of people who exist in this speech. There are “women,” and there are “men that love women,” and there are “the gay people,” and “people of color.” WHAT? Does she honestly believe that that is what Patricia Arquette meant? I think it’s pretty obvious that Arquette was giving examples of movements for justice & equality where people worked together, even if they weren’t part of that particular group, and she’s urging all people to do the same on behalf of pay equity for women. Period. Everything else is Grime’s reading into it or perhaps wanting to seem holier and more politically correct than thou.

  • Phoebe

    I truly don’t see what the controversy is. This is nothing offensive in this speech. I know people will say that it did not explicitly include this group or that group. But these speeches have a very short time limit. It is impossible to name every possible group. She did say ALL women. She did a pretty good job. If you continue to complain every time people try. people will give up. Hell knows that I have become jaded and numb to all of it. No I will not respond to your comments. Just consider me a former feminist. I am now numb to this bickering.

  • http://www.wearealloneworld.tumblr.com/ MishQ

    The “reality check” needed here is for you Andrea Grimes. You are in essence trying to create a divide when you are spinning this story in a negative manner. When Patricia was speaking about women, she was speaking about ALL women including you. She was asking ALL people to help in the plight of womens rights! She did her best to convey that. It was a positive speech. She could have said her thanks but she took that time to speak out about something that ALL women have to face including you, whether it has actively effected you or not. It has effected all women, including White women. Do not forget the many white and black women that fought for our right to vote that have continued to fight their way through a male dominated society to move up the ranks in our Government and Society. Every time we elect a woman to public office, we are making change. If you think for one second that White women do not face discrimination then you are living in a fairy tale land of dreams. This is not about comparing and trying to quantify who has been through more discrimination than another. That is not possible, each woman and person facing discrimination is different and there are variables based upon upbringing, societal constructs, class, creed, religion, etc.This is about ALL women standing united together. That is how we got the right to vote! Women holding each other up and not tearing each other down like what you are doing in this post.

    When you segregate, cherry pick and over-analyze her words with your twisted perception it causes a divide here that is not needed. We need to hold each other up not belittle her heartfelt speech. You do not know the life that she has lived or the discrimination that she has faced as being woman on this earth for the last 46 years. You asserting that she is so well off so her point is invalid is completely ignorant and misguided on your part. Look, Andrea, I get it. You wanted jump on the band wagon and get some views. Great marketing our your part, however for Womens rights, not so much. Please note that I am White and Native American.

    Having said all of that, I will still fight for your rights and so will Patricia. Good day!

    • EqualityEd

      ” Do not forget the many white and black women that fought for our right to vote that have continued to fight their way through a male dominated society to move up the ranks in our Government and Society.”

      Black women had to wait until the late 60’s for their right to vote to be respected along with much of Black America. This is a gender thing for straight white women but much more for others. We don’t need the myopic perspectives of straight white women primarily concerned with themselves dominating the social justice discourse simply because they as a group have far more pull with white men than any other whilst being apart of the dominant racial group in the western world.

      If people of color needed to choose whom to be aligned with it ought be their own because that’s what white folk have been doing for a long time. This gender allegiance is of limited significance at this point in history when racial disparities are far more disconcerting for people of color. I implore you to look at the statistics.

  • Mark Bivings

    Quote -“Don’t play the “It’s not the oppression Olympics!” record, the “Stop being so angry and divisive!” record. It is the favorite album of people who want to act like doors don’t close behind straight white women after they’ve walked through them.” End quote.

    So, you wish to be “Angry and Divisive” but don’t want to be called on it? I truly don’t know whether you are or not. This article certainly doesn’t fall on the side of, “Let’s fight this common cause together.” It comes across as bitter, angry, and insulted that somehow, someway Patricia Arquette’s speech did not speak to the war which you wish to wage. I find myself failing as well in the challenge to my psychic ability to understand why you Ms. Grimes, as a writer, chose this particular call to action on your behalf, to strip it of any power to elevate your argument. You attacked both the messenger and the message as being unworthy of your somehow bloviated sense of entitlement on this issue.
    As a Gay White Man, raised by a Single White Straight Mother, I have just a little bit of empathy for where your coming from. I do in fact get it. EVERYONE needs to be included in the fight and the reward. It is in fact a battle cry that has stuck with me since those heady days when Gay Equality was the flavor of the moment. But in those days, when certain members of the community felt marginalized from the fight, some of them managed to jump in and join the cause to elevate themselves as well. They fought to get their message included. Not to destroy the message itself.
    In the future, perhaps you might thank the Straight White Woman who opened the door on this discussion instead of waiting outside to slam it back in her face when she returns.

    • Mark Bivings

      I’ll make one more note. I know Ms. Grimes did not watch the telecast since she forgot about mention one of the presenters who also took to the stage during the Oscars telecast and made no mention what so ever about wage in-equality. Oprah Winfrey. I guess being the richest woman in the house (Black, Lesbian, whatever) really didn’t matter in her perspective.

  • April

    I didn’t read the whole article because, way too long, and the parts I did read read like an attack. It sounds like you’re saying white women shouldn’t have a voice in equal pay because the gap between our pay and a white man’s pay is not that great compared to any other woman and a white man’s pay. You’re totally right! Also, I’m going to stop supporting equality for gays because I’m heterosexual.

    • http://www.wearealloneworld.tumblr.com/ MishQ

      You nailed it!

    • EqualityEd

      They were saying white women have no business calling out PoC or LGBT for some how failing to support them. White women are in a vastly more privileged position than those two groups in terms of social acceptance, sympathy, and support.

      • Snexas

        She wasn’t asking people to support “white women”. She was asking people & social movements to fight for all women’s rights. It was a call to action. If you’ve been helping the fight, great please continue, if you haven’t please join us.

  • Peggy Smith

    Whoever hasn’t read, “Black Macho and The Myth of The Superwoman” need not comment on Arquettes statement b/c you are missing a lot . . . thank you.

  • Jeffrey Seeds

    It’s not a speech she wrote for delivery to some academic conference on intersectionality. It was ad-lib response to questioning backstage. The hate spewed towards her is grotesque. And yes, it IS the Oppression Olympics when people like you deconstruct what was a bold act for its context (the trade show of a male-dominated industry) and start saying “hey, white lady, shut up!” Feminism used to have something called ACTION. Now it’s got something called THEORY. Theory is all fine and good, but not if its ultimate effect is to discourage people from taking action. Too many armchair activists who think that blogging=action.

    • Snexas

      Thank you

    • Ryan England

      Bravo. Well said.

    • EqualityEd

      The people shouting ‘oppression Olympics’ are usually doing so to marginalize a worst off group that threatens to steal the victim spotlight.

      • Snexas

        “Steal the spotlight”? This isn’t a reality show, it’s reality. Women of all colors & sexual identities are living in poverty, suffering from domestic violence & being denied autonomy over their bodies & you want to steal the spotlight? For what?

      • Jeffrey Seeds

        “steal the victim spotlight…” Now there’s a brain twister for you. Hollywood is full of causes. People working in the entertainment industry by definition have a spotlight on them, and various causes are constantly making a play for celebrity involvement for obvious reasons. Do a little research and you’ll see that Patricia Arquette has lent her name, time, and resources to many such causes. That’s what she was addressing up on the Dolby Theater stage, speaking to an organization whose voters are 77% male, 94% white, and whose writers and directors are 98% male. That was the context and it matters. Address the vitriol towards that situation please, not Patricia Arquette. It is absurd to twist her intent into something like: “hey you underpaid people of color, it’s about time you start fighting for us privileged white women so that I can make more money on my next movie.” Really? She was referring to “causes” and she was pointing out that income inequality is a glaringly neglected one so very close to home in that theater, and it has far wider implications given the role Hollywood plays in our culture and its norms and where it chooses to shine its spotlights.

  • Peggy Smith

    Would
    Ms. Grimes like to shut up Ms. Arquettes opinion merely b/c PA is
    white? This is just another form of stifling someones right of free
    speech.

  • Sue Cavanaugh

    I am of another subgroup: teacher. 80% of teachers in our country are female. Any shout out for women, in my opinion, is a shout out for teachers. Her basic message on a bumper sticker: women deserve equal pay. Trying to complicate her message with all of the different subgroups/intersections etc. is diluting her message! Stop it, please.

    • EqualityEd

      It was white women who reduced the pay equality issue to women while those of other races were marginalized despite suffering more severe disparities. This message needs to be further complicated especially when we recognize the overwhelming role life choices play in creating these gaps. Along sex lines the opportunity gap is small but the choice gap is not.

      • Snexas

        So we’re not allowed to talk about wage equality? Geez Louise! Women of all colors are suffering in poverty & you’re gonna gripe about calling for equal pay, which BTW wasn’t all PA called for & isn’t the only thing feminists focus on.

  • Joe Paulson

    This thing is getting A LOT of analysis. This article is but one of many.

  • http://aoifeschatology.com/ Aoife Emily Hart

    Where’s the article on how John Legend neglected to mention ‘women’ when addressing the enslavement of blacks in 19th century America? Oh, right. Easier to bash a woman. Intersectionality, the red card of creativity-bereft journalism.

    • DonnaDiva

      So basically Patricia Arquette can make a statement criticizing marginalized people for not doing enough for women’s rights but her statement mustn’t criticized?

      • Levi Adams

        She never criticized anyone. She made a call to action. There’s a big difference.

        • DonnaDiva

          Give me a break. A call to action is by definition a statement that those being called to action have not been doing enough, or anything. And in this case WoC and lesbians have been at the forefront of feminism for decades so Arquette’s statement deserved to be called out as being false.

          Call Republicans, anti-feminists, and Big Business to action on pay equity, not on marginalized people – many of whom are already engaged in that effort.

          • Levi Adams

            I respectfully disagree. She never made disparaging remarks about any group of people. A call to action is a good thing. If you have been active in the fight, great. If not, join the rest of us. Why must you take offense to an act of goodwill? This is so ridiculous.

          • DonnaDiva

            You are not respectfully disagreeing at all but whatever. Don’t engage with me again, thanks.

          • Levi Adams

            Was I disrespectful somehow? I think criticizing an ally for a slight so miniscule is ridiculous, but that’s obviously just my opinion. You are entitled to think otherwise, with all due respect.

          • Snexas

            How exactly was Levi’s comment disrespectful? I saw no curse words, assumptions about who you are, or rudeness, just disagreement. So disagreement is disrespect now?

          • DonnaDiva

            Well, if there has to be yelling and curse words for it to be rude to you, I guess you’ll never see it.

          • Snexas

            Well please educate me. How is he being disrespectful? Just because he’s disagreeing with you?

          • Levi Adams

            As a man who loves women, I am one of the groups that she called to action. I have been engaged in that effort for decades, yet I did not take her statements as offensive or critical of me or all men. To do so would be rather silly and counterproductive in my opinion.

          • Snexas

            No a call to action is a call to action. You’re adding imaginary words to her sentence. For one I’ve seen many people claim she’s only talking about white women. Nope, she never said the word white. I’ve seen some people claim in this forum that she said all other forms of oppressions has ended. Nope, she never said that either. It’s maddening.

  • RachelK

    To me, it’s simply this. Most of us agree on her good intentions. We agree she didn’t mean to erase anyone, or to imply any of the things that, and here’s the kicker though, that her actual words do imply.

    And to be clear, I refer only and specifically to the backstage, off the cuff remarks.

    I don’t wish to see her yelled at about it forever or anything! She doesn’t know the history behind the framing she used.

    And that there is the actual problem. And it is ok for people to be mad

    Patricia Arquette has a lot of feminist cred. And she was completely unaware that framing things in the way she did carries a historical weight. The weight is not her fault. But the weight is her problem. It’s my problem, it’s all of our problem.

    And I see a problem, when someone with as much feminist cred as she has, is unaware of a huge chunk of feminist work, theory, and practice. I’m not saying it’s her fault, exactly but I’m saying it’s a problem. And it’s ok for people to be angry about it. We do have to point at specific moments and specific people, and say, look, this is a problem.

    That is reasonable. We can all learn from listening to that.

    It’s not entirely her fault, but she bears some responsibility to hear the people who want to explain why they were frustrated, or angry. She doesn’t know this stuff. Why doesn’t she know this stuff? I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Activism and studying theory are not her full time job. But now that someone has mentioned this stuff to her, her feminism is tested. Can it get bigger? Can it be more inclusive? Is there something to learn here?

    I have never lost by asking myself those questions when I’ve been called out on a phrase or a framing that I hadn’t seen before. I have only gained. It has only advanced the cause of all women to see and recognize the issues specific to one group of women. It is not divisive or hateful to ask someone to look at that. It has not limited my speech, it has allowed my speech and writing to gain nuance and clarity.

    When a lot of people are angry about something, don’t critique their anger right away. Take a good hard look at their reasons. A lot of the time, not every time, but a lot, they are mad because they see something you missed. You missed it because of whatever reason, because privilege, because busy, because tired. And now that you see it, it makes you angry too. You now see more. That’s good!

  • GrandmotherMuhawt

    Pardon me, but the word “people” includes both males and females, so your parsing her speech to argue it does not include women of color or gay women is bogus. What seems to grind your corn is that you do not like the fact that she called on ALL people, no matter what their gender preferences or shades of skin, to fight for equality for ALL women, not just white women. Her point is that white women have long fought for the equality of all the kinds of people she named (Zitkala Sa predicted in the early 1900s that it would be middle class women who would step up to help Indians, so she was very aware that many middle class women who really carry the power in this country, even though it is routine by ALL genders–and I include cross and multi-gendered people here–to ignore women), so those people, in turn, should help fight with ALL women for equality for ALL women. What is really, really sad here is the fact that she HAD to say anything at all; that we are STILL after more than a century, debating women-of-all-colors-and-all-sexual-preferences’ rights. Don’t listen to the naysayers who want a House Divided because that’s how they Keep Women Down!

  • RozSF

    BLACK AMERICAN WOMEN MAKE ONLY 64% OF THE AVG. WHITE MAN AS OPPOSE TO WHITE WOMEN’S 77% AND HISPANIC/ LATINO WOMEN’S 55%…. WHOOOOOO’S SUPPORTING WHOM?

    • Snexas

      The speech wasn’t a call for wage equality for white women. It was a call for wage equality for all women.

      • RozSF

        YES, I do AGREE with YOU…it was for ALL Women….point taken.. was just reading too much into other’s comments…but Women’s equal pay is Women’s Equal Pay! ;-)

  • DA

    What I find most troubling about this commentary is that the author has taken advantage of the 12 hours following the Oscars to parse Arquette’s words, split hairs, and to find fault with inclusions and omissions in her speech and follow-up comments; all while knowing that this accomplished woman had adrenaline pumping through her veins from having won one of her profession’s highest honors and from being placed in front of tens of millions of people. And all Grimes can do is blame her for not having better rhetorical skills? If anyone here thinks Arquette intended to slight a particular group, you’re absurd. If anyone thinks that Arquette should have shut her mouth until such time as she could perfectly articulate her thoughts, you’re absurd.

    This constant parsing of language and intent has come to drive a wedge through common understanding. Nearly all of the commentators here are starting from a place of wanting to agree and yet there is little agreement; this goes to show that we’ve become so mired in splitting linguistic hairs that words have almost no meaning in the context of this debate. Hypersensitivity to buzz words and labels has pushed the feminist movement to a point where it can no longer communicate within itself … much less with those outside the movement.

    Sometimes a speech is just a speech and it should be praised for what it did well instead of being disparaged for what it could have been.

  • Ryan England

    It should be obvious to any thinking person that Patricia Arquette’s speech was a lot of show and precious little substance. Rather par for the course among U.S progressives. Little solid policy advocacy, much signalling and preaching to the choir.

    So I’m certainly riding no white stallion to Ms. Arquette’s defense here when I point out this monstrocity of an article as a perfect example of everything wrong with social justice advocacy in the internet era. Once the diligent reader sifts through all the academic jargon and smug, condescending catch phrases that could well be copy-pasted from any Jezebel article, what we’re left with is Ms. Grimes calling out Ms. Arquette for “erasing” the identities of gay women and women of color, and for calling for people less privileged than herself (as measured by skin color, sexual orientation and gender, NOT by wealth or influence) to “fight for” someone who already has “so much more.” How terrible. Watch out, Heinreich Himmler. Patricia Arquette is about to show you how oppression is done right.

    As if they would not benefit from pay equity across gender lines.

    Let’s cut to the chase, shall we. What Andrea Grimes is really saying here boils down to “My progressive feathers are brighter than Patricia Arquette’s because the people I’m professing to champion in order to make myself look good are more oppressed than the people Patricia Arquette is professing to champion in order to make herself look good, and I’m using more correct academic, social justice jargon while in the process of doing so.”

    Yes folks, that’s what feminism has become these days. Highlighting the suffering of others to make yourself look good. And chewing up and spitting out anyone else who even tries to do likewise in order to make yourself look just that much more enlightened and that much more educated than they.

    And in a master stroke of arrogance and hypocrisy of televangelist proportions, Grimes ends the article by admonishing the rest of us dullards to “listen to people who know better than we do about what it’s like to be a non-white or non-straight or a non-white non-straight person.” While that rules out Ms. Grimes, since her author profile at reality check clearly shows her as being white, and describes her as “living in Austin with her Husband and two cats.” So unless the cats are part of some kind of weird furry thing, safe bet here is that she’s straight too. So can we expect Andrea Grimes to allow her blog to be used by some homeless native or african American lesbian to “tell us what it’s like to be a non white or non straight person being asked to fight for someone who already has so much more” – Like herself, for instance.

    Didn’t think so. But just this once, let honesty prevail in a feminist blog: this isn’t about social justice or wage equity or any thing like that. This is about someone’s little “master’s degree in cultural anthropology” and “senior political reporter” EGO having to show itself off as being just that much more educated, enlightened and progressive than that of someone who “already has so much more.”

    Is what’s passing for feminism today making you sick yet?

    • AbigailTea

      Modern Feminism will soon be replaced completely by get-back-to-the-good-ole days anti feminist groups. Female misogyny is a huge problem right now, not this.

      • Ryan England

        Given the kind of cut throat, pseudo academic posturing that has been masquerading as feminism for decades now, I’d suggest feminists have nobody to blame for it but themselves.

        Besides, I wouldn’t bet on so called “feminism” going anywhere soon. There’s far too much legal advocacy, far too many scholarships, grants, tenure tracks; far too much lobbying, far too much publishing, far too many paid positions as “experts” of some kind or another in gender related issues for this hollow shell of a social justice movement to simply give up the ghost and move on. We’ll be listening to rubbish like this for a long, long time yet.

    • Snexas

      You’re spot on in so many ways. It’s not so much that I disagree with Grimes that intersection & privilege are issues. I actually agree with her that they are.

      It’s just her article was so damn condescending, assuming & horribly timed. Why knock down an ally (Patricia) when she’s trying to help. I think this article derailed a moment in history that could’ve been used to lift us all up.

      If Grimes wants to talk about privilege why can’t we do it in a way that doesn’t attack allies, but tries to educate them.

      • Ryan England

        I also agree about privilege. In a sense, that’s what’s ultimately so tragic about this kind of posturing. Women, minorities, homosexuals, transexuals and a host of others really do face obstacles that white cis-hetero males do not. People who REALLY ARE underprivileged don’t want to beat people over the head with their problems and claim some kind of overarching moral supremacy. It’s the good name of their causes that gets pissed away when some narcissistic blow hard like Andrea Grimes takes hold of them and uses them to bash others to make themselves look good.

        Note that the people like Andrea Grimes who are always piping on about how awful “privilege” is don’t seem to have it so bad themselves. Professional writer and master’s degree in Cultural Anthropology … yeah. Tell us all about life shackled to the wheel of pain, Andrea. Impoverished minorities don’t go around throwing pompous phrases like “People’s multifaceted identities and embodiments in the world are not separate from their womanhood or their personhood or their humanity.” Academic poseurs in a “publish or perish” world do.

        I’m not down on academics per-se. Getting a degree is a remarkable accomplishment. But don’t go lecturing others about “privilege” when you’ve had the opportunity to go to college and are given a forum like this blog to make your voice heard. And people wanting to use their “privilege” to advocate on behalf of those who have less and thus can’t advocate for themselves. Great! That’s truly noble. Really. But Andrea Grimes did anything BUT that here. She simply sought to make herself look good at Ms. Arquette’s expense. With feminists like this, who needs a patriarchy?

        • EqualityEd

          “But don’t go lecturing others about “privilege” when you’ve had the opportunity to go to college and are given a forum like this blog to make your voice heard.”

          You’re defending a rich and famous Hollywood actress not the downtrodden and disadvantaged in society.

          • Snexas

            No, we’re defending her message which was all oppressed groups need to fight for women’s rights. That’s it.

          • Ryan England

            I’m not defending her message, personally. I have no quarrel with an end to wage discrimination per-se. My message is:given that social justice advocacy has degenerated into a sick, ego driven pissing contest of shaming people over who’s more oppressed than who, who can drop more politically correct jargon while finding the most minute flaws to chastise somebody else’s beliefs or actions, who can display the greatest level of self righteous and vindictive anger while shaming other people, social justice movements have become infected by a terminal level of toxicity and that everybody would be better served by simply abandoning progressive politics entirely. This is not going to stop, people.

            This is not the first time this has happened. Written accounts of “party self criticism” sessions in worker’s councils in Soviet Russia and Maoist China were also a lot like this. This has been the ugly reality beneath the romantic facade of revolutionary politics all the way back to Robespierre. It’s centuries past time a more constructive form of social engagement were found.

          • Ryan England

            Neither is this blog defending the downtrodden and disadvantaged in society. Few people really do.

          • Patrick Downing

            Most Hollywood actors come from poor and middle class families as the Arquette family was when she was growing up. Acting is not a easy path to riches and most have day jobs. Good stereotyping that is very close to Breitbart.

      • Ryan England

        I’ll also add that conduct like this is par for the course with internet feminism. “Derailing a moment in history that could have been used to lift us all up” is very much modus operandi for the movement now. It’s entirely and completely about somebody who’s more aggrieved or more enlightened than thou hijacking somebody else’s accomplishments and making it about their own usually petty grievances. Sort of like a more political version of Kanye West at an awards show, if you will. It’s become a sick and perverse game and I refuse to be involved in social justice causes any further because of it. It has become extremely toxic and negative.

  • Levi Adams

    “Guess which women are the most negatively effected in wage inequality? Women of color. #Equalpay for ALL women. Women stand together in this” ~ Patricia Arquette via twitter 11:21 AM – 23 Feb 2015 … Notice how she posted this BEFORE this article was posted? Tell me again how she is “erasing” women of color? This article (and those like it) are a terrible distraction. We should be working together to unite all feminists and unify our message rather than attacking well-meaning allies by putting hurtful words in their mouths.

  • John Clarke

    Annnnd this pretty much sums up why I won’t call myself a feminist even though I am humanist that supports equality for women. This “eat your own mentality” that modern feminism fosters isn’t for me. This WOMAN clearly just wants to see equality for women (all women) and because she utters some hastily put together sentences, while backstage at the Oscars, she get EVISCERATED by her fellow feminists. The realities of the spotlight, the distractions it causes in the mind, while backstage at the fucking Oscars, are lost to the mindless feminist hordes. They can’t wait to gleefully shit all over a woman whose only hope was to drawn positive media attention to the cause of women’s rights. That wasn’t enough for the harpies…OH NO…not them…the harpies are OUTRAGED she fumbled her sentence structure because no one in the history of the GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING WORLD has done that!!! It’s utterly ridiculous to think that Patricia Arquette holds the point of view some feminists now ascribe to her, nevertheless they bring on the derision. She wasn’t trying to marginalize or “erase” anyone, she was just trying to enjoy her Oscar win and do a solid for feminism. You jerk offs might want to think of context the next time you play pile on you fucking assholes.

  • AbigailTea

    We are focusing on the wrong issue in my honest opinion.
    Women’s choices are being attacked more than ever, Women are abandoning the feminist movement, female misogyny is rampant, and this what we focus on?

    Modern feminism is dying. Expect to see more groups like “Womenagainstfeminism” in the future replacing actual feminist labeled groups.

  • Ronald S. Jordan

    The problem with the speech is that white women want outlier groups to support them. Why? As Ms. Grimes pointed out, white women and white men are closer in compensation and benefits than women of color and men of color. More specifically black women have been the support system for white women since Susan B. Anthony and when Ida B. Wells supported the women’s suffrage movement, nothing became of her support but a kick in the ass. Why? Don’t you all take the time to understand history before spouting off? in the law business there is the On Ramp initiative, who are the beneficiaries, Ummm…….”white women.” The lean in movement by Ms. Sandberg, is she talking about all women, no, she only speaking to Ummm “White Women,” Equal is equal was the phrase, no, equal is equal for white women only!

    • Snexas

      No one is talking about white women except you. PA was asking women to stand up for themselves & asking other oppressed groups to fight together for women’s rights. That’s all women, not just the white ones.

      • Ronald S. Jordan

        Snexas, PA was saying just what you refuted. Read the whole article.

        • Snexas

          Please quote where she says “rich white women only”. You can’t because she didn’t.

    • Ryan England

      The Republicans could use a guy like you, Ronald.

      • EqualityEd

        A majority of white female voters voted for the right in the last election, which isn’t something you’ll see happening with racial minorities fearful of the 90% white right that assumes black people are the real racist in America.

        • Ryan England

          Given what a sick morass of egotistical blowhard “this, that or the other group is more oppressed than you, so STFU!” posturing the left has become, white female voters can hardly be blamed for voting right. They’re following the white working class who did the same thing back in the 70s and 80s, and ultimately for the same reason. Who needs the left and its culture of self righteous victimhood?

          If the left could offer a feasble, viable alternative to corporate rule, things would no doubt be different. But since they offer NOTHING except their own smug sense of superiority over the masses on whose behalf they profess to speak, and a resulting sense of entitlement to unquestioning loyalty from their target demographics, they have nobody to blame but themselves when they lose electoral support.

          What is likely to happen once white women abandon the progressives entirely is that the umbrella of political correctness will cease protecting them and their issues. What’s happening here actually shows that’s already started. The process will then repeat itself as the left then turns against the most “privileged” group still remaining in its camp: black or homosexual males most likely.

          And so on and so on.

          • Wyrdless

            “”once white women abandon the progressives entirely is that the umbrella
            of political correctness will cease protecting them and their issues.””

            God I can only hope so. Once white women are no longer PC, the entire framework of PCness will collapse

  • JamieHaman

    Do I think Arquette’s comment was the best ever? No. I do think her equal pay point is valid. I also think a good half of the reason we as human women don’t get our crap together is that we are so divided by race, sexual orientation. Judging by this column, yu went right for the problem of divisiveness.
    Personally, I don’t give a dam if someone is black, white, gay or straight. If they are a woman, they are getting dicked out of equal pay, equal rights, equal responsibilities.
    Let’s focus on that. It doesn’t have to be “either or” it can be all women.

    • Snexas

      I agree, in identity politics women rarely stand up for their identity as women first. It’s been beaten out of us.

  • Snexas

    Andrea I’m truly curious why you chose to write this article in such a condescending tone? From the title to the last paragraph, it was an attack, not an education for those who don’t know about privilege or intersectionality.

    It came off as a self congratulatory piece where you get to be the white woman who “gets it”. You weren’t writing to straight white women to help educate them, you were writing to POC & LGBTQIA people who already agree with you.

    • Ryan England

      Great post, and answers its own question. Most progressive and social justice advocacy these days, especially on the internet, boils down to smug, holier-than-thou moralism, guilt tripping, academic posturing, peacocking, oppression olympics – in short EGO tripping for people who are anything but marginalized and downtrodden. This is more than simply divisive rhetoric. It’s flagrantly fraudulent.

  • Eoin Moore

    WTF is the impulse behind changing #Women’sLivesMatter to #AllMarginalizedPeople’sLivesMatter. Do you crash strangers’ funerals shouting I TOO HAVE FELT LOSS

    • Xxaire

      I think they are mimicing the #BlackLivesMatter which was converted to #AllLivesMatter during the Police vs. Black People fiasco last year. Although, the funeral crashing comment was truly hilarious.

    • Ryan England

      LMAO!

  • grantal

    After reading all this and the comments it just proves you can’t please most of the people most of the time. So much division and I am better than you or I am more ignored etc etc. The problem in the world today, too many people, too many opinions all have had unique life experiences.

  • Wim Rawe

    Boy, what a heaping helping of bull$hiit by whatever grease bag republican shill that wrote it. only a moron or a payed troll could decide that Arquette’s statement was anything but a call for pay equality. I’m left to believe that 90% of the negative comments directed at her are either from right wing troll-bots, or liberals and a whole lot of women are too stupid to help themselves, much less pour p$ss from a boot.

    • EqualityEd

      You’re demonstrating how it’s become mainstream in progressive circles to throw PoC under the bus when they don’t play along with white supremacy on the left. Wage gaps span the identity spectrum but the conversation on it is mostly limited to the comparison between white women and white men. Even when the other groups are aggregated together it serves to erase a reality of relatively lower wages for men and women of color. Centering social justice on the concerns of a high status white elite declaring themselves victims of society should rub those on the margins the wrong way. The Republicans do this every time they suggest tax cuts for the rich because they don’t think progressive taxation is fair. The left does this every time we hear yet another Ivy League child of privilege or millionaire crying about their oppression by society as if identity politics ought ignore class.

      • Snexas

        For the love of all that’s good, did you not hear Ms Arquette talk about women in poverty in her speech? No where did she say anything about rich white woman only. You are disgustingly twisting her words. Why?

        Also just FYI, Ms Arquette was not born into an Ivy League family, she grew up in poverty. Not that it should matter. All people should be fighting for equal rights for women (that’s all women in case you can’t read & wish to twist my words too.)

      • Ryan England

        “You’re demonstrating how it’s become mainstream in progressive circles to throw PoC under the bus when they don’t play along with white supremacy on the left!”

        Ha ha ha ha! Perfect! That was absolutely brilliant.

  • Sophie Montane

    “That’s pretty bad in and of itself. Arquette thoroughly erases
    gay women and women of color and all intersecting iterations of those
    identities by creating these independent identity groups as if they do
    not overlap—as if, ahem, “all the women are white, all the blacks are men.””

    No she doesn’t. You’re the one erasing. You’re the one denying intersection. You’re the one saying that someone can’t be a woman AND a person of color AND gay. That is 100% in your interpretation.

    It is incredible to me that all of you who are complaining about Arquette’s “intersectionality fail” are the ones failing intersectionality.

    I’m a woman and non-white and non-straight and you know what? I belong in all three groups. This does not break my brain. I am able to grasp it. It’s a Venn diagram. Not hard.

    • EqualityEd

      Meanwhile we have people telling black men to check their ‘male privilege’ but doing the same to white women riding high on white privilege is some how a problem. The white supremacy infiltrates social justice like it does everything else and if they can bring their mind around to finding privilege in black men facing the highest incarceration rates in the highest incarcerating nation on earth then I think they can check white women’s privilege.

      Intersectionality needs to stop being a white supremacy scheme where a white dominated media elite calls the shots in social justice for the same people they marginalize by insisting we focus all attention on the issues facing white women which already get more attention than those facing the rest. Not even the black president wants to talk about race if he can avoid it but he’s first at the mic if it can be framed as a problem affecting white women.

      • Sophie Montane

        Oh bull. White privilege is real, but Patricia Arquette calling for equality for “all the women in America” is not white privilege. Lord, she even made a point of mentioning poverty in female-headed households, which is not exactly a rich white lady problem.

        I would have thought that equality for “all the women in America” would actually be something RHRealityCheck would get behind, but instead they spend three days crucifying the woman. More fun to play these People’s Front of Judea games apparently.

        I’m taking my name off RHRealityCheck’s email list. I’m seriously disgusted.

    • DonnaDiva

      So do you agree with Arquette that PoC and LGBT have not done enough to fight for the rights of women? This is keeping in mind that those groups reliably vote Democratic while white people, including white women, reliably vote GOP – meaning for the very people standing most in the way of pay equity.

      • LewisHenry

        PA didn’t say that PoC and LGBT have not done enough to fight for the rights of women – people are applying their own value system on her words. I read it as a call to action for all of us that are marginalized and oppressed to join together to achieve equal rights for all of us. I believe that if we used our collective energy to support each other, and believe in the best of each other we’d have a greater chance at seeing a world where biased based violence was not a multiple daily occurrence.

        • DonnaDiva

          CNN exit poll results for House in 2014, by gender and Democratic vote %

          White men – 33
          White women – 42
          Black men – 86
          Black women – 91
          Latino Men – 57
          Latino Women – 66

          It seems that the marginalized people are already doing the best thing they can do to achieve equal rights, which is voting for the party that is most likely to support them. White people, OTOH, are clearly not doing that. Thus, isn’t it kind of dickish for any white person, even a feminist, to chastise PoC for not doing enough for the rights of all women?

          http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/house#exit-polls

          • LewisHenry

            Voting isn’t nearly enough.

          • DonnaDiva

            Yeah, people who want pay equity and other good things should do more than vote. They should be doing GOTV work at election time to get the GOP out. PoC and LGBT activists have demonstrated their commitment to voting and elections for decades. Where have white cis straight people been? Oh yeah, voting GOP at a rate of 60-70%, for the kind of people who oppose equal pay at every opportunity. For whatever reason (and they’re all barkingly stupid) they choose to do that.

            I mean, unless you were thinking of some magical and nonexistent “outside of the political system” solution. If that’s the case, nope, sorry. Equal pay will not be crowdsourced, occupied, drum circled, or leaned into. It will only be achieved through legislation and the courts forcing employers to pay women equally, which means you have to have good lawmakers and judges.

          • LewisHenry

            then we must become the good lawmakers and judges.

          • DonnaDiva

            Wow, you are really committed to blaming anyone but white people and their shitty voting habits for the situation we are in. There are already plenty of high quality and caring people running for office but they lose in places like my state of Arizona because the majority of white women here would rather stick it to black and brown people than have equal pay for themselves.

          • LewisHenry

            I am most certainly NOT blaming white folk for the continued oppression of all non white non heterosexual non economically and otherwise privileged peoples.

            I choose to see this controversy as an opportunity to unite, an opportunity to actually work for change, an opportunity to build bridges – rather than moving backwards into criticism and back biting.

            Why are we arguing when we agree on the same thing? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater when we are all working toward the same goals? – Justice and Freedom and Equality

            This is exactly what those who have the power want! The want us fighting each other instead of fighting them! They want us to blame each other rather than blaming them for keeping us down! And we give in to it time after time after time.

            Maybe we don’t deserve nice things since we eff it up every time someone has the gumption to use their very public voice to call for change.

          • DonnaDiva

            Sigh.

            THE. WAY. TO. FIGHT. THEM. IS. FOR. WHITE. PEOPLE. TO. STOP. VOTING. REPUBLICAN.

            And with that, I’m done.

          • LewisHenry

            Of course you are. Whenever anyone presents an alternative idea or is hopeful about opportunity they get shut down.

            BTW – I don’t know any white people who vote republican, so I guess my work is done on that front.

          • Wyrdless

            “”the majority of white women here would rather stick it to black and brown people than have equal pay for themselves.””

            in other words: if you don’t vote the way i want you to vote, that is proof that they are racists.

            Good luck with your outreach in that community with an attitude like that

          • DonnaDiva

            Why do they need outreach? They’re the most privileged women in the country. You coddle them if you want. I’m done.

        • DonnaDiva

          Also, can you explain how we can use our collective energy, outside of simply not voting for Republicans who have proven themselves to be in opposition to equal rights for all of us? PoC and LGBT are already on board with that. They’re already doing the work.

          • LewisHenry

            I’d like to see more gay folk and white folk show up at #blacklivesmatter events. I’d like to see more PoC and straight folk show up at gay rights events. I’d like to see more men show up at women’s right events. I’d like to see all people with financial privilege show up at benefits for under / unemployed people. But simply voting Democrat isn’t “doing the work”. I’d like to see all of us show up for each other and support each other in our endeavors for equality.

  • Neighbor

    Upper middle class white woman allies of WoC: Let’s not pretend you understand what it’s like for all white women. let’s not speak for all white women okay?

  • http://coffeeclutterandchaos.com/ Carol Rood

    She also talked about women who have given birth to citizens. What about women who haven’t given birth? They don’t deserve equal pay?

  • Кевин Смит

    Andrea,

    Thank you for your thoughtful and impassioned commentary on this topic.

    I am interested in discussing if Patricia Arquette’s track record as an activist (particularly as a trailblazer in attempting to solve santitation issues in Haiti) and outspoken supporter of trans people has a place inside of this dialogue or not.

    In my (gay white male) opinion, it seems that a more multi-faceted response to her fumbled phrasing backstage at the Oscars — she’s a well-spoken person and she also said Superior instead of Supreme Court Justice — might be more appropriate. I feel that in this way, it would be possible to call attention to the (admittedly very important) idea of intersectionality, while at the same time taking PA’s intentions for what they were and rallying behind the idea of fighting to end wage inequity, in support of all women in this country, single moms in particular.

    As someone who has a general sense of PA’s track record and what she stands for, I understood that she meant all women (and, most likely, especially gay women, trans women and WOC). As a member of a marginalized demographic, I will also say that misogyny is alive and well in the gay community. I would like to see an end to it. I would also (more globally speaking) like to see men stand in solidarity with women to help end wage inequity. Furthermore, I wish that more celebrities were half as well-informed, activist-minded, and outspoken as PA.

    Thank you for taking the time to read this. Again, I respect and appreciate what you had to say.

  • ScottCU

    Andrea Grimes took what was a pretty good off the cuff remark in the press room while still in the excitement of the moment, and turned it into a useless and boring article. I wonder how many drafts of this article Andrea wrote before publishing it? If it was more than one, it’s probably because she did not state all of her thoughts as clearly and accurately as she wanted to. Those of us who have at least a hint of critical thinking skills know what Patricia was saying and understand things don’t always come out verbally in final draft form.

  • ericmvan

    No, the person who divided people into mutually exclusive groups was you. not Arquette. The English language simply does not work the way you’re claiming it works. If I say “it’s time for all people to work towards peace in the Middle East, all Israelis, all Iranians, …” the “all people” means ALL PEOPLE. Subsequently naming a subgroup does not and can not retroactively subtract that subgroup from the meaning of the earlier words; no language works that way. When Arquette says “all the women in America,” that is rather incredibly obviously precisely what she means, and the person who is subtracting gay women and women of color from the “all women” and the “us” is you, not her.

    “All the men who love women” is, I think, pretty clearly equivalent to “all the men who are not misogynists” rather than all straight men, because she is clearly not expecting the crazy and very hetero Men’s Rights gang to support this cause, which they actively revile.

    Because this is an off-the-cuff run-on sentence, you could be confused into thinking that the mention of “gay people” and “people of color” had something to do with the first two groups she mentioned. But it’s pretty clear that they don’t, since she has just succinctly named ALL THE PEOPLE who could be expected to fight this fight. In complete contradiction to your assertion, she has been ENTIRELY INCLUSIVE.

    So, mid-sentence, she is quite clearly starting a new thought. And it’s admittedly a bit odd at first glance: a call for the beneficiaries of recent liberal activism (gays and people of color) to join the fight for wage equality. But there is absolutely nothing in such a sentiment that implies that THOSE fights are anywhere near done. Nor is there any reason to regard liberal activism as a zero-sum proposition, where efforts to fight one injustice must come at the expense of another. It was clumsily worded (no surprise in an off-the-cuff interview), but it’s pretty clear that she’s saying, in large part, that we need to focus on wage equality the way we’ve focused on gay marriage and police treatment of POC’s.

    Whether there is some specific obligation for the potential beneficiaries of those movements to “pay it back” themselves by nworking for wage equality — well, that’s certainly subject to debate. But that’s hardly divisive. This nonsense.is.

    • Snexas

      Thank you!

  • Patrick Downing

    Welcome to the progressive circular firing squad.

    • Ryan England

      Cripes, you can sure say that again.

      Progressives here are acting like a bunch of toddlers in a day care. They don’t care about this toy or that until one child has it. Then they fight, whine, cry, scream and throw tantrums until they get it. It’s really quite embarrassing. This place would be an absolute gold mine for a Rush Limbaugh or an Ann Coulter. Conservative pundits and politicians really should have people scouring sites like this, and holding up this ridiculous, whiny behavior as what we’d all be voting for if we voted left. It would be 1979 all over again at the polls, that’s for sure.

  • Patrick Downing

    Patricia Arquette is a member of the Radical Front of Judea who are the real enemy, when she should be in the Popular Judean People’s Radical Front;

  • Patrick Downing

    I was raised by a poor white women (and man). You can not reach poor people when you use the words intersectionality or cis.

  • djtorchMusic

    At first I thought it was nobel what she said until I really read what she said and most importantly, where was she when Obama was pushing for equal pay. He took a lot of heat for that and I can see him now shaking his head saying, “That’s what I just said”! So, it’s a shame that people are NOW rallying behind equal pay for women while Obama tried to do that a long time ago and it literally went ignored.

    It would’ve been even more noble if she simply said, “It’s time for equal pay for equal work, no matter who you are”.

  • ericmvan

    I want to repeat a crucial point here.

    If someone asks, who is most at risk for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, a doctor might well reply “women and health care workers.” THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL HEALTH CARE WORKERS ARE MEN. In the English language, when multiple categories are included in a single sentence, THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OF MUTUAL EXCLUSIVITY. It is the LISTENER who determines, by their knowledge or ATTITUDE, whether the categories are mutually exclusive (e.g., “Arabs and Israelis”).

    “If you’ll recall, the person who actually started dividing people into groups here was Patricia Arquette”

    NO. ANDREA GRIMES DID THAT. She decided that the groups should be viewed as mutually exclusive. Even though the first group was “all women.”

    Do you know what this little screed has accomplished? It has raised a serious doubt in my mind as to whether “intersectionality” isn’t entirely devoid of practical meaning. (Given that I’m a proud progressive who worked on the Elizabeth Warren campaign, and have been a member of N.O.W., etc. whenever I’ve had money to give away, I’m not the sort of person you want as a doubter.) If we had full economic, racial, gender, and sexual orientation equality, there would be no uniquely intersectional problems left to solve, so it seems unclear that there needs to be any specifically intersectional activism; indeed, working just for, say, women of color, would seem to be *exclusive.*

    Nor am I convinced that anyone actually fails to perceive all of the elements of an intersectional identity, which would seem to be a massive failure of low-level and evolutionary necessary brain processes (e.g., thinking that fire is dangerous does not preclude thinking it’s useful). Is there any research that shows, for instance, that gay black men are less likely to be perceived as gay than gay white men? It seems likelier to me that the impression that people see the multiply disadvantaged as belonging to only one group or another, thus “erasing” part of their identity, is being produced by nothing more or less than bizarre misunderstandings of language, as seen here.

    So it seems to me (and I am entirely open to arguments to the contrary) that intersectionality is actually ONLY about understanding that those who belong to multiple discriminated or challenged groups face difficulties that can be far greater and more complex than the simple linear sum of the individual difficulties. Being chronically ill AND unemployed is a heck of a lot worse than the sum of being each, separately (that one’s from personal experience).

    Are there any liberals who don’t already get that, though? Is there any true liberal whose compassionate heart doesn’t respond to each of the challenges, and to the awareness of the way they multiply against one another?

    What I see in a screed like this is a PRESUMPTION to the contrary. Which can only be divisive to the liberal cause, and DESTRUCTIVE to the goals of the intersectionality movement.

  • ericmvan

    Here’s “intersectionality” in a nutshell.

    A rich white boss has two resumes, from Thomas O’Donovan and Lakisha Nyong’o. The latter is clearly more qualified.

    It would, in fact, be a blessed RELIEF to Nyong’o if the boss erased either her femaleness or her blackness, saw her as only one or the other, and discriminated against her ONLY on the basis of her race or gender, rather than on both.

    But of course that never happens.

    If conservative brains don’t work that way, why would anyone think that liberal brains (almost by definition more open and flexible) would?

  • Reactionary Expat

    I love watching the Left eat their own. Pol Pot would be proud. :D

  • BigGreen

    My 12 yr. old gets wrapped up in semantics. “but it could mean,..” This is simply dishonest. We all know what she meant, just because someone can opportunistically point out that it might mean something else, or that the speakers own awareness isn’t what it should be when advocating for Good, is absurd, pointless, and very dishonest. We all know what she meant, even in her ignorance. Showing your ignorance is of no benefit here.
    I hope you are not paid what your competent counterparts are, Andrea.

  • Tj Swift

    Arquette’s statement highlights the crack in identity politics: you can’t say or do anything without offending someone – unless you are an anointed feminist, ala Ms. Grimes, then feel free to disseminate away with impunity.

  • Mister_Carson

    She is clearly a cis-normed tea-bagger! /sarc off. The victimhood bus is getting mighty crowded, isn’t it? Of course if we simply acknowledged that every one goes through trials in their life, we couldn’t really form a power (er, political) base from that. now could we?

  • Flanders

    I can’t claim to understand why this was offensive, but as far as I’m concerned “women” includes all women, including those of color and those that are gay. I’m fairly certain that “men who love women” was meant to target heterosexual men. This leads me to believe that she said “gay people” because she wanted to capture the men who are not attracted to women too. Then she said “all the people of color” which I am pretty damn sure includes women and men of color…

    So who exactly was left out again?

  • Purrito Purrpants

    Oh for f’s sake. Maybe she did not elucidate things exactly as you would have liked them to be. She seemed overwhelmed and nervous giving the speech. Give the actress a break; maybe it was her first time speaking her truth.

    Perhaps you aren’t aware, but the word “gay” to many people encompasses both men and women of the homosexual persuasion, and is a catchall term for all the iterations of the LGBTQI+ rainbow.

    Many straight people do not know the “lingo,” but try to be respectful and inclusive. When you trash them for not using the latest PC lingo, you are only creating a backlash against those of us who are in the LGBTQI+ community. You also silence those voices who would speak up, but are too afraid of the PC police to say anything.

  • Wyrdless

    Hilarious article. thanks for the laugh.

  • 5Arete23

    Homoiousianism is correct and liberatory. Homoiousianism and homoeanism are oppressive.