One Perfect Tweet Shows Just How Ridiculous Everything Is

[BainsBane]

Hemal Jhaveri ✔ @hemjhaveri
Follow
People are losing their shit over Patricia Arquette saying that women deserve equal rights. Like this is how low we are right now.
9:13 PM - 22 Feb 2015

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/02/one-perfect-tweet-shows-just-how-ridiculous-everything


Look pretty and thank the Academy, dear. Remember your place.

[ismnotwasm]

1. Exactly

There's a lovely thread about this in GD right now.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. not sure I want to know.

off to look anyway.

like when I was nine and kept picking at that scab on my knee ...

[seabeyond]

5. really? and the same ole telling us the reason why the male gets so much more money?

whatever. so damn tired of their shit

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. Seems like we are ALWAYS starting at Ground Zero.

it gets so Fucking old and Tiresome.

Thanks, Baines

[seabeyond]

4. people are flipping out? because women want same pay as their counter male playing a role?

and they are flipping out? why oh why..... would feminism e gaining that damn momentum that so many insist is dead.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

35. ^^^ this^^^

Thanks to social media.

One of the great benefits of Social Media is that it gives women a relatively safe place to communicate outside of smaller woman-only environments. (Traditionally, inside our homes.)

Now the battle can be seen for what it is on the fields of public discourse....

....From which US and European women used to be legally barred, and have continued to be functionally barred. Of course we see the unevolved extreme in Middle Eastern societies and other religious communities.

[Iliyah]

6. The people freaking out are fake news, i.e., so called Christians aka GOP party and their

misinformed base.

[sheshe2]

7. People are losing their shit over this?

color me shocked, or not~

they should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be.

[Dont call me Shirley]

8. When Patricia said that, I knew the gop squawking heads would be popping like geysers.

[randys1]

27. They hate Women so what they think is irrelevant.

She was brave to say what she said on that stage, it could be used against her someday.

Good for her

[Dont call me Shirley]

32. Like another McCarthyist celebrity round-up, that could be coming again.

All of the winners who spoke out against the effed up system are brave.

[malthaussen]

9. You know...

... just when you think you've hit bottom, some cretin hands you a shovel and tells you to start digging.

-- Mal

[riqster]

10. Yeah, what a radical notion.

"Equality? Whazzat?" Such tools are the Righties.

Good on her for speaking out.

[JDPriestly]

11. Thanks to Patricia Arquette. We are women. We matter, and it's our turn.

[angrychair]

12. don't get me wrong

I appreciate the message. I appreciate the world stage it was said on. That being said, excuse my for being hesitant to thank a millionaire, in a room full of millionaires, for comments on income inequality. These people have no more real inclination to really address income inequality than they would to give back or give away the tens of thousands of dollars in swag bags they got last night.

[BainsBane]

13. The thing about Hollywood celebs

Is that most weren't born rich. They got lucky, and many of them know it, which is why they tend to be liberals.

[Fred Sanders]

14. Don't shoot the messenger, listen to the message.

[angrychair]

15. all due respect

A room full of millionaires is not going to fix the problem...they are the problem. There is little difference in that room of millionaires and the one that Rmoney made his 47% comment in a couple of years ago. Don't quote me how this person or that person gives or does this thing or that. A lot of people do. I would suspect that while neither of us can give charity "X" $50,000 we still give a representative amount in money and/or time in relationship to our means. Doesn't make us special.
In short, a millionaire, who got a swag bag last night worth more than I'll make in a year, trying to talk about income inequality is hard to take serious.

[BainsBane]

16. There is a huge difference

I don't think you have a clear sense of how rich some of the financial elite are. Hollywood money is pocket change to them.
Hollywood is about entertainment. They don't control the economy, nor do they set the terms that lead to income inequality in the rest of the country. More importantly, the problem is not rich people but the system that promotes income inequality. Hollywood doesn't figure into that situation because their industry doesn't impact wages in the rest of the country. Also, you seem intent on ignoring the point about women being paid less. That is very much true in Hollywood, like elsewhere. She didn't talk about income inequality generally, she talked about women being exploited, being paid less than men. You seem to consider that so inconsequential, you feel entitled to make this discussion about what you want to talk about, in a safe haven group on feminism no less. Even disregarding that, your entire approach to income inequality is self defeating. People with money are the ones with access to the media. If you don't want rich people talking about income inequality in the media, that means it won't be discussed at all.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

18. Not to mention, Arquette didn't claim the the "room full of millionaires"

is going to "fix the problem." Good grief, so we should never talk about a problem if the people we're talking to aren't going to fix it? Also, she was talking a worldwide audience of millions.

[angrychair]

21. we have a failure to communicate

Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2015, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

I sincerely apologize for giving the wrong impression but a message board is a poor substitute for conversation.
First and foremost, I am slightly offended at the presumption with respect to my feelings on income inequality for women in the movie or any other industry. My whole rant was about income inequality, so how we got from millionaires being a poor spokesperson for income inequality to me feeling that fair pay for women is "inconsequential" is a significant intellectual leap.

Secondly, if you don't realize that the entertainment industry has had a huge impact on the perception of wealth and how it shapes how people measure their own self worth and how entertainers create false expectations from everything from body type to living standards than you have not been paying attention the last 50 years.

lastly, I could not disagree more in advocating for the wealthy as a spokesperson for income inequality. one voice is a start. 10,000 voices is better. One million voices is a foundation for real change. No movie star(s) is ever going to effect real change. People effect real change.
I appreciate the exchange is and please except my apologies as I was not attempting to hijack the thread only to make a broader point on a very important subject.

[BainsBane]

31. Again, the issue was not income equality

but equal pay for women. You say you are offended, but then you continue to ignore the point. Not only that, you feel perfectly entitled to decide which women (if any) are "people" and allowed to speak in public. Feminists, whether rich or poor, don't ask your or any man's permission to speak in public about our rights. She is not a spokeswomen. She used a few minutes in the public eye to raise an issue about WOMEN"S RIGHTS. It isn't about you, and you don't get to decide when and where women are allowed to speak.

[angrychair]

36. again, really?

did you not actually read what I wrote? The post we are replying to right now? My commentary had nothing to do with Ms. Arquette as a women but as a member of the top .01% of income earners. Everyone has the right to an opinion and to express it. I appreciate the sentiment, I do. I find this never-ending debate over what should be "the easy call" tiresome. Ms. Arquette's position and subsequent public stance isn't ground breaking or controversial. In the world of questions there are to answer, this is one of the easy ones to answer. YES, all people should be treated fairly and as equals. A great many politicians, heavily influenced by very wealthy people, have made these questions way to hard to resolve. Because of that I am more interested addressing issues such as this at the grass-roots level with real people that have real income issues and struggle to fight legislation, everyday, that tells them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
The ERA was first proposed in 1972. Congress has had long enough to decide. People need to stop looking to politicians and movie stars and twitter and facebook to solve our issues. Typing "#women's rights" into twitter isnt going to make that goal anymore real. Lackluster politicians and 1% income earners are not going to make any real changes. At the end of the day there goal is to maintain the status quo because the status quo gives them their power. Only people, in mass, can effect real, long-lasting, change.

Lastly, you have impugned my honor and integrity on this thread, comments I did not earn or deserve. I will no longer continue this comversation with you. You don't know me or what I do yet you haphazardly label me a misogynist. I've been a Democrat since before I knew what a Democrat was. Why? Because I have always identified with what I consider core principles that I have always felt anchor me to the Democratic Party: the equal and fair treatment of everyone without regard to race, sex, national origin or sexual orientation. Not once I have diminished Ms. Arquette as a women nor have I impugned her right to speak because she is a women. I have only addressed this topic in the context of her being in the top 1% (actually top .01%) of income earners and have stated as much in several replies on this thread. I have never not been on the same side of this issue as you, I apparently just have very different opinion of why this is even an issue and how to address it.

[BainsBane]

38. I did not call you a misogynist

How absurd. What I said is that you miss the point. Her comment was about women's rights, something that you feel perfectly entitled to tell others they have no right to speak about. This is what she said, verbatim:

“To every woman who gave birth, to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights,” shouted a fiery Arquette. “It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America!”

Nothing about the gap between rich and poor but rather the GENDER GAP in pay. The point about income inequality is important, but it is not what she spoke to. You most certainly denied her right to speak. You said that since she is wealthy she isn't fit to address the issue. Of course it isn't new or path breaking. It's very basic, yet people, yourself included, are still losing their shit about it. That was the point of this OP.


I am sick to death of men telling us what we are allowed to talk about. If we discuss cultural matters, we are told we should focus on important issues like legislation. When we discuss equal pay, we are told we shouldn't "count on government." No one is counting on shit. We are discussing an issue. That the issue doesn't address your concerns and goals clearly bothers you. We aren't counting on government, Hollywood, or men to enact changes for us, and we do not seek your permission.

Moreover, this false allegation that I called you a misogynist is uncalled for. I addressed what you wrote and pointed out you continually misrepresented her speech to make it about your issue rather than what she actually said. I am responsible for my words, but not how you feel. That is your issue. It's great you care about grass roots activism, but that doesn't give you a right to make every discussion about what you want. Other people have a right to raise ideas and concerns as well.

[mercuryblues]

28. That would be

a #6

The imperfection attack.

Because you know, she is a rich woman, therefor should not have an opinion on a matter that affect her and billions of other women.

[angrychair]

29. her opinion isn't at issue

Everyone has a right to an opinion and has the right to express that opinion. My only issue is that the point of origin was a little obtuse. I care a great deal more about the paycheck of the 99% income bracket of women out there than I do the 1%.
I'm sure the 10's of thousands of women and men for that matter, that have been screaming about income inequality for decades can at least take solace in that at least now some people are listening.
Stop waiting for a politician or movie star to fix the problem. There are millions of us and we can effect change.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

17. So anything said by a wealthy person can be dismissed? That makes no sense.

[angrychair]

25. not what I said

What did say was that it is makes no sense for someone with millions of dollars in the bank to have a serious discussion on income inequality. Its like asking me to feel sorry for the NBA player getting paid league minimum. Not going to advocate for a millionaire to scratch out another million on their contract. I could care less.

What I do care about is ensuring the lady that works in my group, doing the same job, gets the same pay. That we get a good wage and we are treated equally. I do care about the pay and working conditions for production assistants and staging crews in the film and TV industry as they can get treated like crap but movie and TV stars have always had the ability to effect change there but have rarely done anything.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

30. By that reasoning, white people should not have spoken out or participated in the Civil Rights

movement.

[magical thyme]

33. she didn't ask you to feel sorry for her. She was initiating a discussion on pay equity

and addressing it to the billions of women around the world who earn less than men for the same work.

It's nothing like you asking anybody to feel sorry for an NBA player getting minimum. Because:

1. she didn't ask anybody to "feel sorry" for anybody
2. she was speaking on behalf of women everywhere, not herself
3. she was in front of a microphone and in a position to be heard by billions.

[mopinko]

22. millionaires dont run shit.

agree w bb, you dont have a clue as to the order of magnitude that you are talking about.
you are short about this many zeros- 000,000

[cui bono]

24. Bitterness isn't going to change anything. Speaking out does. n/t

[niyad]

34. one of the differences would be that the hollywood room full of millionaires actually DID something,

contributed something--even if some of the product is not to our taste. same cannot be said for rmoney's room full of gazillionaires.

[Phentex]

19. she was speaking to the millions watching as well...

and to the writers and directors and producers and people who tend to hire men more than women and then when they do offer a role for a woman, they pay her less.

This was THE perfect place to open and her mouth and speak.

[mopinko]

20. the sony hack

showed that even box office busters get less if they are women. even co-stars in the same movie.

[cui bono]

23. So what is the appropriate salary amount where it would be okay to demand equality?

And you seem to think she was speaking only for herself. She did not say "I", she said "women". That means all women of all income levels.

Why do people think that people who make a good living and have success in their life are not allowed to speak out for the rights of human beings? She didn't have to say anything at all, would that have been better?

[angrychair]

26. talking about it is great

That it was said on a world stage, great. My point is that a millionaire, in a room full of millionaires, talking about pay inequality is a little obtuse at best.

The paycheck I care about is the walmart, target, McDonald's, state and federal employees barely making it or not making it at all. If you are the 1%, your paycheck inequality is very low on my priority list.
So the term got some airtime, so what now? As I have already said, one voice is a nice place to start. 10,000 voices is great. One million voices is a foundation for real change.

[LanternWaste]

37. How precisely, is her dialog regarding equal pay insensitive at best?

How precisely, is her dialog regarding equal pay insensitive (the fundamental definition of obtuse) at best?

Or (and I find this more likely), finding a person obtuse is, in this instance, a convenient excuse to talk about her rather than her message.

"So the term got some airtime, so what now?" It added additional voices and additional ears to the conversation, which seemed to be the immediate goal.