Note: I am the least appropriate person to be writing this post, but I think it deserves to be written. I apologise in advance for any oversights I might have because of my "privilege" (read: cis white female with University education who has a command of the English language, etc.)
This post comes about because of something that happened to me the other day which made me check my privilege majorly. Someone I know very well, someone who I consider a very good friend and whom I love dearly, is planning a trip soon. They will be going to countries that I have visited in the past, and they've realised that they won't have as much time as they expected, so they have to cut one leg of the journey. They asked my advice. I replied honestly with what I thought would make a better trip, which country I thought was more spectacularly beautiful. And got a reply that basically amounted "Yeah, I agree, but people tend to be more racist there". The fact is, that despite this person being an extremely close friend and me trying to have their best interests at heart at all times, I had not considered this at all. Racism had not come into my mind at all when thinking about his decision on the trip.
I think I apologised for not thinking about it, and said, quite honestly, that I unfortunately couldn't help him to decide based on that factor because I had not been aware of it when I had traveled in this country. I felt awful for not having thought of this. Effectively my "privilege" had been "checked" (specifically, my white privilege) (the reason I use quotes is because I don't like either of these words in the way they are used, but that's fodder for another post).
This made me think again about how many people who try to help from a position of privilege (acknowledged or not) make mistakes. But then there are mistakes and there are complete fuck ups. Patricia Arquette's Oscar acceptance speech could have been a mistake. If you want to read it in full, it can be found here. However, what she said later backstage was a fuck up.
Now, the first few paragraphs of her acceptance speech are the typical thanks to people who collaborated in the film and to family and friends. It's the last paragraph that worries me. It says "To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights."
I don't know how anyone else reads it. But the way it reads to me is "women have fought for everybody else's equal rights". What would this mean? This would mean that women fought for equal rights for other minorities, namely people of colour (especially black people in the context of the United States) and LGBT. Now this is problematic. Firstly, it is assuming that others' equal rights have been achieved. They haven't. Though there might (approximately) equal legal rights it is obvious that in the United States people of colour especially are discriminated against, suffering the most police brutality and the most incarceration, numbers being particularly grim for black people. LGBT people, especially trans people, are still routinely the victims of hate attacks and of assault, and these crimes are less persecuted (and I mean persecuted, not prosecuted). Secondly, it assumes that women did fight for these "equal rights". This is undoubtedly true, women have been and are involved and lead many of the protests that have led and are leading to changes for equal rights. Unfortunately, it was not all women. In fact, when it comes to fighting for equal rights, each minority has done more for itself than anyone else. To suggest that women, as a unified group, have done a lot for any minority is ridiculous. It is true that women of certain minorities have been instrumental in driving change and equal rights for those minorities (trans women come to mind, but also black women, who are doing an incredible amount of work on Twitter and other social media).
Furthermore, Arquette went on backstage. And that's when the fuck up really started. This is what Arquette said:
"It's time for all the women in America and all the men who love women
and all the gay people and all the people of colour that we’ve fought
for, to fight for us now"
Now, let's unpack that sentence. Firstly "all the women in America". Surely, that should include the women of colour and the gay women, but apparently they are not included in this "all the women in America", because she seems to need to point out "all the gay people and all the people of colour". So clearly, when she speaks of "all the women in America" what she really means is "all the cis-hetero white women". And this is not subtext. This is clear. She follows this with "and all the men who love women". I mean, I would ask all the men to do it, but ok. This, again, should include gay men and men of colour... or is she implying that men of colour and gay men don't love women? Or does she mean "white heterosexual men" who love women? Or does she mean by "love" heterosexual, in which case, again, she is either implying that black men are not heterosexual, or that they don't love women... in any case, fucked up. Let's continue "and all the gay people and all the people of colour who we have fought for". Now, this is where the shit really hits the fan. Firstly, are those two groups not included in "all the women" and all the "men who love women" if you are meant to be inclusive (and excluding the weirdo difference between men and men who love women)? Secondly, are this two groups not an intersection? She could have just said "We should all fight for", but no, she had to name groups, and she fucked up. Now, saying just "men" and "women" would not have been strictly all-inclusive, but it would have been a bit less of a fuck up, because at least it wouldn't have assumed that women and "men who love women" aren't women of colour and gay... Thirdly "who we have fought for". What the fuck? Who is this "we"? Is this all the people in America? The people in the world? Women? Who the fuck is this we, because it's fucking problematic. Let me tell you, the people who fight for people of colour tend to be people of colour. Unfortunately, very few white people can claim to really have fought for people of colour. They might abstractly or from afar agree that they have equal rights, but have you seen them march? Put their lives in danger? Because, for the most part, they haven't. The people who have bought for LGBTQ+ rights have mostly been LGBTQ+ people themselves. Most minorities fight for their own rights and don't get shit from the privileged majority. They get less than shit: they get push back. They get shot at, they get fought, they get attacked, they get incarcerated, they get insulted.
Finally, if what she's saying is that gay people and people of colour haven't been fighting for women's equal rights (which is a stupid thing to say, especially because so many gay people and people of colour are women themselves, and most women in the US want equal rights), all I can say is that they have a) a better track record for fighting for equal rights, because they have to fight for their own and they understand the need for equality better than anyone and b) some of the most active women fighting for equal rights.
So, Patricia Arquette, I'm sure you were well intentioned. I'm sure you were trying to do something good (although actions speak better than words). But you fucked up. This sort of comment is what "white feminism" is about: it's racist and it's exclusive. Don't be part of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment