https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-nomination-w/
I can buy the racial exclusion argument, conceptually.
Two highly regarded performances were left out: Viola Davis in “The Woman King” and Danielle Deadwyler in “Till.” That the category’s most glaring snubs were both Black women has been a point of discussion.
I don't know if it is true (it might be), but what matters is that it is coherent (and it is). I don't buy this statement by Chinonye Chukwu,
“We live in a world and work in industries that are so aggressively committed to upholding whiteness and perpetuating an unabashed misogyny towards Black women.”
If some women are benefiting, while some women are not, then the net effect on "women" (as a class/category) is "zero." It's not misogyny. If it is intentionally and/or functionally, interpersonally and/or systemically NOT a case where more of fewer women are affected, it isn't misogyny by any metric (traditional or novel). Rather, it is racism (intentionally, or functionally, interpersonally or systemically) and the victims happen to be female.
EX: Someone beats "X" to a coma because of their skin color. That's racism. That that person also happened to be Buddhist, libertarian, a Taylor Swift fan, over six feet tall, are incidental. It would not make sense to say that "This is yet another case of tall people being targeted for violence!" or that "The marginalization of Swift fans continues."
The frustrating aspect of today's reasoning is that it is so unreasonable,
on face. The contradictions are right there, on the surface, waiting for anyone who dares to cross the Orthodoxy to point them out. But if you do...
The temptation to double-dip on a non-unique attribute, however, needs to stop. If it is racism, then let's call it racism and deal with it. If it is cronyism, then call it cronyism. If it is nepotism, then give it that name. Piling on charges like a greedy district attorney only confuses matters.