The Kurgan Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 This morning, while sifting through the usual rubbish in my Facebook newsfeed, THIS comes up: I did not watch the Oscars and did not hear the speech in question. Regarding the issue it raises, the notion of pay inequality for women is actually quite mired in controversy - I've read a few studies that suggest that when other issues: education level, field of employment, presence or absence of marriage/kids and so forth are factored out, the pay gap narrows considerably or even disappears entirely. I won't speak to that here. I suspect that IF the wage gap was completely and demonstratively disproved by the most credible of economic analysis, an entire nation of women, progressives and guilty white males would quite suddenly become conspiracy theorists to make Alex Jones blush. Plus, a more cynical side of me suspects Ms. Arquette is engaging more in dishing out ideological red meat (or perhaps more appropriately vegan delight) to the younger and hipper segments of her fan base than in anything politically substantial. I'll suggest instead that we take this meme at face value and assume that there is systemic wage discrimination against women; that all of the women in America who work for a living are paid less just for being women. If this is so, one would think that Ms. Arquette's statement would be greeted by universal agreement among liberal minded Americans. You'd think wrong. While there WAS no shortage of accolades, many of the expected bromides were also present in full force in the comments that followed. Here is the first and most quintessential: And the liberal pissing contest has begun. More progressives followed with what are most certainly weighty issues of grave import: The punctuation in the meme. That's what really matters here, folks. I would think that with OR without the comma, Ms. Arquette would be saying something that liberal minded people could get behind. Naturally, not. One progressive takes a "every man alive comes from a woman, so we should be exalted for that" type of stance while other progressives took the academy itself to task for its apparent lack of diversity since one member thereof decided to speak out on an issue of inequality, while another progressive still objected that "woman's worth is not derived from being a mother" type of angle: Whatever it takes to makes oneself a bigger victim still, or to demonstrate oneself even more enlightened and progressive than thou by highlighting the struggles of a group still more oppressed than that to which the original poster belongs. What I did not see a lot of were MRA types coming on and crying "what about the men?" Perhaps - though I'm sure not holding my breath here - the MRAs have finally smartened up and figured out that the best thing they could possibly do if they wanted to sink feminism is to shut up and let it destroy itself through constant infighting over which group of women/minorities or whatever are more oppressed and who got left out and why and who has the right to speak for who and so on and so on and so on - instead of providing these prima donnas with an enemy to unite against. Is this what's become of once proud traditions that struggled to bring basic rights and equality to otherwise marginalized segments of the population? When one member of one group comes out in favor of a fair shake for their own group, they get dragged down by a bunch of other sub-segments of that same group loudly proclaiming themselves more oppressed and therefore more entitled and worthy to speak, only to have the same thing happen to them in turn, and so on? Besides, I doubt a lot of these wankers are really that marginalized anyway. Beginning with the Motion Picture Academy and on down the line to humanities majors with the educational back ground to pontificate so eloquently on the pervasiveness of social privilege, none of these people actually seem that hard done by to me. You'd almost think they're actually quite acutely aware of how privileged they really are, and feel guilty about it. And gain relief from their guilt only when attacking people farther up the social totem pole than themselves. In any event, I don't know whether to pity the poor soul actually trying to advocate for some measure of real social justice, or to look on them with complete contempt for failing to realize what an ego-driven gong show their end of the social and cultural spectrum has become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 This year it was hard to take people who make fiction on silver screen seriously because they make money to pretend. So the Selma song/acceptance speech WE ARE BLACK PEOPLE hear us roar vs the Lady Gaga Sound of Music and screeching Patricia Arquette women demand equal pay acceptance speech really made me kind of laugh out loud. Black ppl vs jew white woman ppl vs staid Oscars. I will take Lego AWESOMENESS over being preached to by people who make millions while I make 42K. Interestingly enough, I haven't seen any of those movies for Best Movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Social justice is like The Gong Show?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDxDYIQL6Nc?t=30s I think the world would be a much happier place if that were true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerina Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think it's ridiculous to assume that just because someone does not have the same struggles as you do, they are not worthy of advocating against those struggles. White people should advocate for black. Men for women. Straight for gay. Being a part of the privilege is not a crime, especially when it's something you have no control over, and the privileged are the ones who need to recognize the marginalized. But so very often they are vilified for speaking out. And, seriously, TK, why do you hate women so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 And they're vilified for not speaking out, Cerina. And differing groups fall at each other's throats over who's more "marginalized." As if this were about anything other than blowing victimhood and marginalization up into some kind of across-the-board moral superiority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerina Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 These people do such a great disservice to the cause (all the causes). Most of the time (definitely not all of the time) groups that claim to be marginalized are, and there are genuine people out there advocating for change. Then these asshats come along to make a spectacle of the whole damn thing, and POOF! there goes all the credibility and half the support. Then come along people like you, TK, who call out the SJWs for being these asshats, but inadvertently give the impression that you're against the original philosophy for advocating the change. Which then just snowballs shit. I mean. I'm assuming you don't have any real issue with feminism at face value, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 If by feminism at face value you mean a sort of "equal in the eyes of God" or "eyes of the law" sort of equality, no I have no issues with it and am in fact concerned for the future of the idea. The far right, especially in bible belt regions, are truly scary in this regard. You know, the "legitimate rape" sort of crap. I likewise fear the MRAs - men's rights movement - may soon reach critical mass. If that does happen ... God help us all. The movement does seem to be a lightning rod for women (and men too) with more personal axes to grind, however. They may have legitimate grievances with certain specific males to be sure, but feminist ideology as it is presently constituted does seem to suggest a degree of guilt by association and collective responsibility where stuff like this goes. Plus a lot of them come across to me as "true believer" types - feminist theory is the end-all and be-all, the one word from which all truth and virtue derive. Anything they say or do is good because they're the ones that choose to do it. Of course, any belief system can draw such people. But feminism seems to have replaced Marxism is the flavor of the month for this type of person who can't seem to find it in its traditional bastion: religion. Likewise, it draws people who tend towards being uptight, prudish, philistine and uncomfortable with sensual and sexual matters. Which would be fine if they owned those characteristics instead of projecting them onto society - hence also their preoccupation with theory and political correctness. Stripped of this sort of baggage, I don't actually find most of the feminist belief system to be disagreeable. There's nothing about "my body my choice" "equal pay for equal work" "No means no" and so forth that I can object to, and would gravely distrust anyone who DID object to them. But ... I'll paraphrase what Gandhi supposedly said about Christianity: "I love your feminism. I do not love your feminists. So unlike your feminism are your feminists." The self righteousness, the judgementalism, the double standards when it suits them, the demonization of out groups, the projection of all of these traits onto their political opponents. No thanks, man. Self described feminists are people I would not associate with if I could help it, unless they proved themselves exceptions to the rule. Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryn Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I think it's ridiculous to assume that just because someone does not have the same struggles as you do, they are not worthy of advocating against those struggles. White people should advocate for black. Men for women. Straight for gay. Being a part of the privilege is not a crime, especially when it's something you have no control over, and the privileged are the ones who need to recognize the marginalized. But so very often they are vilified for speaking out. I, too, know what it's like to be thirsty. I, too, have had a dry mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I think we've gotten into this bizarre territory where the term "feminism" has become so broad (ranging from the extreme of "men are oppressors" to anything vaguely in the "girl power" sphere) that it's almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion; since everyone has a different notion of what it means to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I think we've gotten into this bizarre territory where the term "feminism" has become so broad (ranging from the extreme of "men are oppressors" to anything vaguely in the "girl power" sphere) that it's almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion; since everyone has a different notion of what it means to them. Yeah, very true. And your definition can be wrong no matter who you discuss it with. If you use a dictionary definition, it's wrong in the practical sense, because you're omitting tons of baggage and context. How cute. This person thinks feminism is merely the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities, and the pursuit of that goal? Oh sweet, naive child, if only it were that simple. Let's take a trip to the tumblr/twitterverse... But if you define it in part by its baggage, you are wrong, too! Heh, this person obviously doesn't understand feminism! They are allowing a few nasty-but-noisy feminist outliers/Rush Limbaugh/The Patriarchy to define it for them! But no, feminism is merely the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities, and the pursuit of that goal! Nothing more, nothing less! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Patricia Arquette Undermined Her Own "Most Feminist Moment" of the Oscars Patricia Arquette’s Spectacular Intersectionality Fail They eat their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odine Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Meh... She didn't articulate herself impeccibly backstage and now people are itching to to tear her a new ethical asshole. Crap pisses me off. It fucks me off when someone tries to do or say something nice, or bring an awareness to some issue or another and people piss on them cause they neglect all these other minorities. Or use incorrect labeling. Or incorrect groupings. WTF. With one oscar acceptance speech Patricia arquette has probably done more for women than what most pissed off Mommy, freedom, rights-and-justice bloggers have done in the entirety of their insignificant pissant lives. Not that I care. I mean, I get it. She's privileged, white and rich. She's probably vain and using her position to talk about something she doesn't know that much about. But she's no Bob ****ing Geldof at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 She is just hoping she can make as much as "Gil Grissom" did on her CSI Show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 That's my point, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Patricia Arquette Undermined Her Own "Most Feminist Moment" of the Oscars Patricia Arquette’s Spectacular Intersectionality Fail They eat their own. That reality check article is perfect. That is an absolutely quintessential example of what I'm talking about here. After reading it, I simply could not help myself. I decided to risk another temp-banning from disqus forums to log on and post a response. It read as follows: 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. The Oppression Olympics are honorable and just in comparison. And in a master stroke of arrogance and hypocrisy, of near 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." Well 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Mathison Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 "Church of liberalism" is my phrase LK!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 But it's such a GREAT phrase, Carrie. So succinct and to the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 Meanwhile, in the comments section of the reality check article, the beat goes on: LMAO! Progressives are like a bunch of whining, screaming toddlers in a day care. They wouldn't give a toss about this toy or that until one of the other children gets it, then it's time to pitch a fit: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burt Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Wait, do women really not have equal wages as men? I haven't worked in private industry very often, is that really still a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Wait, do women really not have equal wages as men? I haven't worked in private industry very often, is that really still a thing?For 90% of jobs, I would wager that women ARE making the same as men, and the often quoted stats are either out of date, or skewed in such a way to make it look like there is such a huge gap in pay. It probably isn't a real factor until you start looking at upper management or professional jobs where you still see more men than women in those positions and salaries are negotiated, where you start to see the overall average salary skews in favor of men. And I would wager that in cases there is a salary difference between men and women (assuming ALL things being equal), it either comes down to what is actually negotiated (IE maybe men are more aggressive in negotiating salaries in those particular cases), OR maybe they are cases where there are still isolated pockets of good ol' boy clubs. But as for the average, every day job, especially hourly jobs, I don't see how it is even possible to pay a woman less for the EXACT SAME work, and not get sued any more. Most companies realize this, and because they don't want to be sued, they will make sure there is salary equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destiny Skywalker Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Yes. When you adjust for level of education and job type, it's not as bad as some people often quote (I think the figure is 72 cents for every dollar a man thinks), but it's somewhere around 90 cents for every dollar and it's even worse if you're not white. I think some companies are better about it than others. I suddenly had some big adjustments a few years ago. I think I finally got a manager who noticed something was up and did something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Yeah, and I am by no means excusing it. All I am saying is that like most "social justice causes" statistics are manipulated in an effort to be alarmist about it. Otherwise, if you are accurate about the stats, and say something akin to "10% of women CEOs still only make 90% the salary of men for the same work," no one is going to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerina Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 http://theweek.com/articles/541337/feminisms-oppression-obsession-undermines-women Thought you guys might enjoy this. Identity politics instructs people to define their politics not by reference to general moral principles of justice and rights, but some shared experience of oppression. It divides people into myriad oppressed groups, each jockeying for power to secure its own interests against others — not put in place neutral rules that work for everyone (because such rules, in their thinking, only serve to entrench "existing power relations" and "structural marginalization"). The problem with identity politics is two-fold: One, given that everyone is oppressed in one respect or another, any group can invent a plausible narrative of oppression. Even white men increasingly see themselves as oppressed given that affirmative action policies favor other groups over them in admissions and hiring. In the game of identity politics, every group thinks only of the oppression it confronts rather than the opportunities it enjoys in order to move up the oppression scorecard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 That was an outstanding article. But of course, feminists are not criticizing her for under-appreciating what she's got, because that would be tantamount to endorsing patriarchy. They are instead accusing her of "structural erasure," "intersectionality failure," and other feminist sins that are all fancy ways of saying she spoke out of turn. In the game of identity politics, every group thinks only of the oppression it confronts rather than the opportunities it enjoys in order to move up the oppression scorecard. A balanced account of one's life and identity has become a ticket to marginalization, which is why it doesn't even occur to someone like Arquette that, all in all, she has it pretty good. Those were perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good God a Bear Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 When celebrities speak out against anything referring to equality I typically roll my eyes. Where is their outrage in that people who actually have an occupation that matters struggles to make ends meet when they get 5-10 million per picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts