I understand the poor wording choice, given American history, but I feel like I have a problem with the idea that white women, or women of any color for that matter, can't use the word "slave" to describe the historical (and even modern in many areas) treatment of women. Women throughout history, regardless of color, were bought and sold through dowries against their will. They were beaten, raped, forced to work for or bear children for men against their will. That is also a form of slavery.
Once again, I understand why using the word would bother African Americans. I guess I just also understand why women of any color would also feel it's an appropriate way to describe the historical treatment of women. Someone help me with this.
I understand the poor wording choice, given American history, but I feel like I have a problem with the idea that white women, or women of any color for that matter, can't use the word "slave" to describe the historical (and even modern in many areas) treatment of women. Women throughout history, regardless of color, were bought and sold through dowries against their will. They were beaten, raped, forced to work for or bear children for men against their will. That is also a form of slavery.
Once again, I understand why using the word would bother African Americans. I guess I just also understand why women of any color would also feel it's an appropriate way to describe the historical treatment of women. Someone help me with this.
The quote is implying that the white woman has/had a choice between "slave" or rebel. But actual slaves, by definition, have no choice. This is a quote from her character (I think?) but isolating it and putting it on a T and standing there like you're in line at Starbucks adds a lot of ..... flippantness? to the already privileged quote.
That's my initial reaction anyway. Someone help me out here.
here's the trailer. It's a british set movie with Pankhurst playing a significant part (suppossedly the only good part of the movie) so I get why they wanted to use a quote from her. THAT SAID horrible horrible optics and a bad choice.
It's bad even if a reference to those other instances of slavery and women (eg the sex trade) because it implies women have a choice. "Oh I don't want to be a sex slave for the visitors at the World Cup this year. I'm going as a rebel instead!" As easy as changing a Halloween costume.
It's just a bad t shirt all the way around, for many reasons.
Didn't Meryl recently say that she's not a feminist? She's a "humanist." So. Yeah.
Bad shirts ladies.
I was just coming in to say this. And that, logically speaking, you can't be a humanist (using her definition of wanting all humans to reach their full potential) without being a feminist first.
I understand the poor wording choice, given American history, but I feel like I have a problem with the idea that white women, or women of any color for that matter, can't use the word "slave" to describe the historical (and even modern in many areas) treatment of women. Women throughout history, regardless of color, were bought and sold through dowries against their will. They were beaten, raped, forced to work for or bear children for men against their will. That is also a form of slavery.
Once again, I understand why using the word would bother African Americans. I guess I just also understand why women of any color would also feel it's an appropriate way to describe the historical treatment of women. Someone help me with this.
Why should it only bother African Americans? I know you don't mean it this way, but it's a little like a man saying rape is a "women's issue."
Off-topic, but I'm not sure how Pankhurst would have felt about being called a suffragette, iirc that was usually a pejorative and the women called themselves suffragists.
mouse you're flipping the terms Suffragists were for peaceful means of campaigning for the vote, Suffragettes (Under Pankhurst) were for radical action.
mouse you're flipping the terms Suffragists were for peaceful means of campaigning for the vote, Suffragettes (Under Pankhurst) were for radical action.
That makes a lot more sense.
And suddenly the mom on Mary Poppins seems much cooler.
ETA: or it might be British/American usage. From the national (I assume American) women's history museum: In the United States, supporters of woman suffrage preferred and used the term suffragist. In Britain, militant supporters of woman suffrage called themselves suffragettes. When the American press, or those who opposed woman suffrage, called an American woman a suffragette, it was intended to be derogatory.
My first instinct was to excuse this and whitesplain (inside my own head) that it's okay because it's a direct quote from Pankhurst about an important issue. My first instinct is to get a little defensive and think why does it always have to be about Slavery!
But no. It's intellectually lazy. I need to do better. They could have done better. They could have easily put "No matter what the dangers" on those shirts and taken their smiley Swift-Posse PR picture.
Hello? Actual enslavement is worse than not getting to vote. And given the topical nature of race and BLM, at least in the USA, it's weird that they didn't consider the enormous historical gravity of the word, "slavery," especially in a movie about human rights.