Beyond Double Standards: Audre Lorde wasn't "Queer"-identified. She was out as a Lesbian. Now, what is it called if White Gay and Trans People Don't Honor and Respect Her Naming of Herself? Lesbophobic? Misogynist? Racist? Anti-feminist? All of these?

photograph of Lesbian poet Audre Lorde is from here

20 Jan. 2011 Addendum:  My objection to Audre Lorde being called "Queer" is not directed at anyone in The Audre Lorde Project. It comes from other sources--online, not in NYC, and I'll link to them so you have some context for what I'm addressing and analysing. Are Black women entitled to name themselves? Or once they are dead is it fine for anyone at all to call Black women by other names that erase much of what they fought hard and lived hard to accomplish in constructing their own identities?


See, for example, from *here*:

A fascinating feature of the book involves its inclusion of a striking variety of responses to threat that women have offered. The collection contains accounts of women's militance, rage, flight, unyieldingness, apathy, passion, breakdowns, and banding together, either in couples or larger groups. Couples find a prevalent place in the book, particularly in the convergence of partnership and eroticism. Lorde celebrates queer sexuality while she cites the realities of discrimination and "bashing." One exemplary poem is "Outlines," in which Lorde explores a relationship between "a Black woman and a white woman / with two Black children" (12).

See also, this, from Wikipedia:

Audre Geraldine Lorde (February 18, 1934 – November 17, 1992) was a Caribbean-American writer, poet and activist. [Hmmm. No mention of her being a LESBIAN, or, even "queer". -- Julian]

See this, also from Wikipedia:

The Audre Lorde Project is a Brooklyn, New York-based organization for queer people of color. The organization concentrates on community organizing and radical nonviolent activism around progressive issues within New York City, especially relating to queer and transgender communities, AIDS and HIV activism, pro-immigrant activism, prison reform and organizing among youth of color. It is named for the queer poet and activist Audre Lorde and was founded in 1994. [the bold and enlarged text was made so by me, Julian to note the lesbian-invisibilising portion of the paragraph]

See also these two quotes:


“When we define ourselves, when I define myself, the place in which I am like you and the place in which I am not like you, I’m not excluding you from the joining — I’m broadening the joining.”
— Audre Lorde in Sister Outsider

“If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” -- Audre Lorde

I have read Audre Lorde refer to herself and other lesbian women of color, referring back to the 1950s, as  gay-girls. And later she was out as a lesbian and a feminist. Never, ever, had I heard her identify herself as "queer". As if we needed more signs that queer/trans/gay/het culture is eradicating lesbian-feminist existence, this is it. We already are well aware that dominant WHM society will ignore, appropriate, or destroy Black lesbian existence to its own ends, often to turn people's lives into two-dimensional pornography or to tokenise individual Black lesbian activists so as to appear "inclusive", such as when mentioning Barbara Smith, Cheryl Clarke, or Audre Lorde during Women's History Month or Black History Month in the Academy. Or to refuse to mention the values and activist aims of any Black lesbian feminist, on television or in any dominant corporate media dealing with social justice and human rights. 

When is the last time Democracy Now featured a Black lesbian feminist speaking about white male supremacy as a central problem? Probably the last time they had Angela Davis or Alice Walker on their show, actually. But one or two people isn't enough to represent the richness of Black lesbian feminism. I wish it were the case that we could hear from ONLY one white het man on any given social issue, and that would be considered sufficient.

Liberals and even some progressives tell me there's room at the table for all of us. But what I've noticed is the table is designed to only allow just so many, and if you are white and male, there's more room for you than if you're neither. If you're pro-white and pro-male, there's more room for you than if you're neither. If you're pro-racism and pro-misogyny, if you're pro-appropriation of the cultures and experiences of people of color, and pro-appropriation of women's cultures and experiences, there's also room at that table. And guess who folks with white and male privileges expect to serve them at any table?

It appears to me that there isn't room at the White Liberal Queer/Trans/Gay-dominated table for lesbians of color. No room at the table. Not even the kitchen table any more. Nor is there room for radical lesbian feminists of any color.

What will it take for the values and activism of radical lesbian feminists of all colors to be honored and respected? Will it take having governments respect and acknowledge girl-raised lesbians as a specifically gendered social-political group deserving of civil and human rights protections, including the right to not be invaded and appropriated by non-lesbians and anti-feminists?

While the person named below supports a withdrawal of lesbian time and money from The Audre Lorde Project, I don't. I don't support any form of boycott of The Audre Lorde Project by anyone given that it works to assist people with far fewer privileges than most lesbians and gay males I know; and the people who benefit from the Project also have far fewer privileges than most of the media spokespeople for queer and trans communities or activist efforts to reduce exploitation and violence against queer-identified people and against lesbians who do not necessarily identify as queer.

[Portions edited out by moi, the author, for being unnecessary, inappropriate, and stupidly racist--that's my racism, no one else's.]

It is important to me, as someone who seeks to support women of all colors who act from radical feminist analyses and ethics, that Black Lesbian Feminism not be erased from herstory in the name of "inclusion" or to make a political group become more "queer-friendly". In my experience, without exception, making a group that was formerly explicitly pro-lesbian feminist into one which is more "queer-friendly" inevitably means that group has become more male supremacist, more anti-lesbian, and more anti-radical feminist.

For more on the unwelcome male supremacist return of "GLBT", see *here*. For related posts, see
A Response to "Transphobic and Racially Confused" by Brandon Lacy Campos to Dirtywhiteboi67 and Our Civil Rights are Not Enough: Beyond Queer Inclusion to Liberation from CRAP.

See the following for what prompted me to post about this. You may click on the title below to link back to the source site. Everything below was written by a person who names herself online with this word: Dirt.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Lesbian Only and Lesbian Student Only Orgs

I spent several hours yesterday searching Lesbian/Student Lesbian only organizations and found none. I will continue to look and if I do find any or if you happen across any email me them and I will keep that list at the side. But while searching and coming up empty, my searches werent a total bust, I found out that according to wiki, Audre Lorde is now a queer poet and activist! Oh really, does the deceased LESBIAN poet and activist Audre Lorde know this? Does she also know her name is being used for this "project"...???

Using a LESBIAN activist's name, claiming to be for the "queer" alphabet soup, yet its front page picture clearly illustrates just what this "project" is all about: TRANS.

The Audre Lorde Project is another deceptive organization utilizing a famous black LESBIAN for its deceptive needs.

If you are interested in helping lesbians, do NOT donate your lesbian time or lesbian money to this "project". This is another org. who needs to alter their name to reflect their true goals.

dirt

Written by Dirt at 7:27 AM

Our Civil Rights are Not Enough: Beyond Queer Inclusion to Liberation from CRAP

image of a queer march on Washington, DC is from here

I've been reviewing how some in our community are telling our stories. I've had occasion to view After Stonewall, a 1999 documentary about queer struggles from 1969 through the rest of that century, primarily in the U.S., but also in places like Australia and South Africa. What is reflected in film is demonstrated in life: civil rights, while necessary and worth fighting for, cannot and ought not be the sum total goal of any radical social justice work, because any sustainable form of justice can't exist inside a society which requires poverty, genocide, trafficking, and rape to continue unchallenged.

If you have the chance to see After Stonewall, note especially Barbara Smith's observation about the third Lesbian, Gay, and Bi March on Washington. When our celebrations are about finding routes into two of the most racist, patriarchal institutions on Earth: marriage and the military, surely the oppressors have won. Because if we determine victory, or freedom, by the measure of how thoroughly we can be welcomed into dominant society we missed our most important objectives, to dismantle dominant society.

I have been told by many people across many political spectrums that my refusal to support Equal Marriage Laws--meaning, specifically, that I won't work to pass them and I also won't work to oppose them--is anti-gay and homophobic. When someone shows me how marriage does anything liberatory for girls and women globally--liberatory, as in radically anti-patriarchal--I'll reconsider my stance on that issue.

What we see in After Stonewall, is an entirely uncritical examination of marriage, the military, and its smaller scale enterprise, the city police force. There's never any suggestion that these institutions are problematic beyond being exclusionary.

The fundamental problem with CRAP isn't that it is exclusionary to queer people. The problem is that it is genocidal, gynocidal, and ecocidal. The problem is that it will only accept any outside group in if the outside group agrees to not challenge the core values and practices of CRAP.

I reject as inhumane any social justice work that doesn't address the atrocities which inhere in racist heteropatriarchies, including the ones called the U.S., the UK, and Australia.

If you watch After Stonewall, notice how there's no analysis of what gay men wish for lesbian women to be other than not around or care-givers. The film is carefully structured to not get into how some lesbians fought to expose the white and male supremacy of dominant sexuality and its production; instead this part of our history is written off as being co-opted by the Right, which was never the case. What was the case was that the Conservatives and the Liberals, from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton, didn't want anything done to stop male access to women. Neither political group has ever sought to stop male access to women.

As I consider issues that are present before me within queer community, one of them remains the entitlements men and males have to claim the following as "ours": women, including women's bodies, energy, and support. To object to an idea that males and men should have full and complete access to women, for nurture, for cooking, for cleaning, for manual labor, for getting water, for child-rearing, is to be perceived as many things, and among them "selfish" or "transphobic". So this leads me to ask my trans and intergender sibs, what is our position on men and males having unmitigated access to and the right to appropriate women, including women's bodies? In what ways do we critique a medical and psychiatric model that empowers grossly misogynist industries and institutions to reproduce women's body parts--fake ones--and pretend they are just the same as female-born women's bodies? I ask this about our support of doctors who are in the business of surgically constructed so-called female body parts onto and within female adults, male adults, intersex children or adults, or transsexual adults?

What is our political position on whites having access to and the right to appropriate Indigenous people, cultures, and land? In what ways do our efforts make Indigenous women on reservation land freer from rape by white men, for example? Or is that outside our sphere of concern?

What is our political position on the force the police and military use to beat and kill people? Do we stand with the police and military, only because some of our own are allowed to serve? What other reasons do we have for standing with them? They commit racist, genocidal atrocity daily, do they not?

What is our political position on capitalism that is ecocidal, disproportionately poisoning and polluting the land where poor and Indigenous people live? Do we stand with corporate industries and businesses because some of our own are in upper management within them? Or because the richest and whitest males among us can live in various places around the world, considered "for the taking" by anyone with enough money?

What is our political position on slavery, trafficking, and pimping? Do we stand with the most harmed around the world or with the most liberal and privileged among us, on these issues?

After watching some skewed telling of "our" story, I have to conclude that Barbara Smith was right: our LGBTIA movement died with the third march on Washington. And nothing radical or revolutionary has been done in our name since.

That the current struggle is visibility for cis gender and trans people who are queer, without any questioning at all about male entitlements to act out white het male supremacist sexuality and to take possession of women's bodies, or facsimiles of them, without any interrogation about the role male supremacy, white supremacy, anti-Indigenism, heterosexism, and capitalism play in shaping our desires, identities, efforts, and endeavors, ought to sound some loud alarms. Are we listening for them?

I hear some queer theorists speak of the need to "queer up" society. To make it "less straight". What does that mean, if we attempt to unpack those expressions and rephrase them in terms that distill how much white and male supremacy and corporate capitalism live in them?

Are we still wanting to argue that gay males are "real men"? And if so, why? Are we still wanting to argue that adults are either real men or real women, and if so, why? What is "a real woman"? Can anyone in queer circles answer that in ways that are anti-racist, pro-Indigenist, and anti-heteropatriarchal?

Are we supposed to care that Queer Theory and Queer Studies is largely if not entirely anti-feminist, anti-activist, anti-radical, and anti-Indigenist? Which queer people are we fighting for? White radical lesbian feminists? Lesbian feminists of color? First Nations? American Indians? If none of those people, what are the ethics that guides our courses of organised political action? Who does our activism exist to serve? If Queer Theorists largely reject the tenets and activist aims of radical feminism, what does it replace it with that ensures that white male supremacy is challenged and transformed? Can any Queer theorist or academician answer this question?

If we achieve legal equality with our masters and oppressors in a legally corrupt State that is perpetually at war against women, at war against the poor, at war against U.S.-located people of color including immigrants, at war against Indigenous, Brown, Black, and Asian people worldwide, what and who are we?

I'd say we're still worshiping at the alter of that giant white cock called The Washington Monument, just like in the image above.

Sexism Becomes US: An examination of corporate media culture's racist heteropatriarchal version of "feminism"

image is from AlterNet, here

I've never been a huge fan of pink or blue. The very sight of the cover above kind of makes me ill. I especially hate how pink is used to sell things to girls and women. A Cherokee man I know, who is married to a white woman, is the primary parent to their daughter. He's hoping she'll grow up to be lesbian. He knows what white men do to girls and women, and also to boys. But his spouse is into teaching their daughter how to be "a girl" even though she, herself, hated acting "like a girl" when she was young. So when Christmas comes around, as it tends to do each year, you can bet that she and her family will have invested money in purchasing all kinds of plastic, stupid CRAP designed to make their female child into "a girl" as the dominant U.S. defines the term.

I didn't play with trucks when I was a child. I also shunned sports. I was not, in that sense, "a good boy". I'm not convinced I was a boy at all. But neither was I a girl. Dollhouses held no fascination for me. I was into insects. And card games. And television--lots and lots of television. I've also preferred purple and green, most of my life.

I've also never been a fan of prudishness or promiscuity, corporate Christian preaching or crass commercial pimping. The two options most held out to me by the Conservative White Religious Right and the Liberal Left have been so lacking in humanity, dignity, and justice, that I can scarcely imagine why they attract as many people as they do. Neither one offers us any course of action intended to lead to liberation out of CRAP on Earth. To find such roadmaps, one has to look to people and to books which refuse to accept Western Civilisation as intrinsically good.

Western Civilisation has never been anything other than an atrocity committer with a semblance of sociable culture to temporarily sustain its wanton unsustainability. It was malignant upon initial growth and it will likely destroy everything in its ignoble quest to exploit and consume the world.

Within Western Civilisation, dominant U.S. culture has produced some good things, imo, such as some good music and movies, some good activists and artists. But by and large, it has done little for the world, other than to possess and poison it.

In a new book by Susan J. Douglas, Enlightened Sexism, the attributes of the U.S.'s mass-produced corporate media culture that ought to be glaringly obnoxious and blaringly noxious are these: overwhelmingly patriarchal, unrepentantly heterosexist, unapologetically white supremacist, and globally capitalist.

Publisher Comments:

Women today are inundated with conflicting messages from the mass media: they must either be strong leaders in complete command or sex kittens obsessed with finding and pleasing a man. In The Rise Of Enlightened Sexism, Susan J. Douglas, one of America's most entertaining and insightful cultural critics, takes readers on a spirited journey through the television programs, popular songs, movies, and news coverage of recent years, telling a story that is nothing less than the cultural biography of a new generation of American women.

Revisiting cultural touchstones from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Survivor to Desperate Housewives, Douglas uses wit and wisdom to expose these images of women as mere fantasies of female power, assuring women and girls that the battle for equality has been won, so there's nothing wrong with resurrecting sexist stereotypes—all in good fun, of course. She shows that these portrayals not only distract us from the real-world challenges facing women today but also drive a wedge between baby-boom women and their millennial daughters.

In seeking to bridge this generation gap, Douglas makes the case for casting aside these retrograde messages, showing us how to decode the mixed messages that restrict the ambitions of women of all ages. And what makes The Rise Of Enlightened Sexism such a pleasure to read is Douglas's unique voice, as she blends humor with insight and offers an empathetic and sisterly guide to the images so many American women love and hate with equal measure.

As companion critical books to the one excerpted by AlterNet below, I also recommend reading Pornland, by Gail Dines, Conquest by Andrea Smith, and Black Sexual Politics, by Patricia Hill Collins. What follows is cross-posted from AlterNet.

Sex R Us: The Rise of Enlightened Sexism

The following is an excerpt from Susan J. Douglas' new book, The Rise of Enlightened Sexism (St. Martin's Press, 2010). Copyright © 2010 by Susan J. Douglas

“Can you unbutton the top button of those jeans and push them down?” instructs the unseen horny male pervert behind the camera. The nervous young woman in the TV ad is poised to oblige. In a companion ad, a young girl appears to be auditioning for a triple-X-rated film; the off-camera degenerate tells her not to be nervous as she slowly unbuttons her dress. In yet another, the leering voice urges a young man with a blond pompadour to tear off his shirt, saying, “You got a real nice look. How old are you? Are you strong? You think you could rip that shirt off of you? That’s a real nice body. You work out? I can tell.”

Speaking for much of the nation, one reporter observed that these commercials looked like “runaway kids coaxed from bus stations by exploitative adults.”

When right-wing conservative religious groups and liberal feminists find themselves spooning in ideological bed together, chances are that it is about one thing: sex. And that was the case when Calvin Klein—who in 1980 gave us 15-year-old Brooke Shields purring, “Nothing comes between me and my Calvins”— released a series of print and TV ads in August 1995 uniformly denounced as bordering on kiddie porn. The soft-core ads in magazines like Mademoiselle featured slim, white, mostly blond pubescent models in various stages of undress, their hands in their jean pockets or hooked over the waistband to enable them to pull the jeans down even lower. They looked directly and provocatively into the camera. The TV ads described above and showcased on MTV made people especially crazed because they looked like D-level stag films from the 1960s. (Inquiring minds can see the ads on YouTube.)

Outrage roiled from the conservative American Family Association and the Catholic League to women heading rape crisis centers, as critics ventured that maybe this pedophilia marketing strategy was a bit too debased, even for American advertising. Klein quickly yanked the campaign and within two weeks the Justice Department had launched an investigation into whether his use of underage models violated child pornography laws. Undaunted, Klein still slapped giant photos of young men— but this time in their early 20s—wearing nothing but bulging briefs and hair gel on the billboards of Times Square. In 1999, to promote Calvin underwear for children (what happened to underpants by Carter with dinosaurs on them?), he launched another campaign featuring high-definition black-and-white photos of boys who appeared to be around 4, and girls who appeared to be between 4 and 7, jumping on a sofa in nothing but their Calvins. This time the ads were pulled within 24 hours.

Despite the controversy surrounding the Klein campaigns, they were a harbinger of two trends that gained considerable steam in the late-1990s: the rampant return to the often degrading sexual objectification of women, and the increasing sexualization of children, especially girls. Books with titles likeStriptease Culture, Pornified, So Sexy So Soon, andThe Lolita Effect have documented the mainstreaming of pornography and its lopsided negative effects on females. Here’s what our increasingly pornified media have been telling girls and women: dress like a streetwalker but just say no—or dress like Carrie Bradshaw (whatweresome of those outfits?!) and just say yes. Old-fashioned American prudery has always been an important component of keeping women in their place. So has pornography. A culture that is prudish and pornographic—how’s that for a contradiction to navigate?

The pornification continued to expand and to move down the age chain. The Bratz dolls, launched in 2001, with their Sunset Strip hooker outfits, make Barbie look like a priss (although a very stacked priss); the selling of thongs that read “eye candy” to 7-year-olds; the transformation of Britney Spears from teen pop star to midriff -baring, breast-implanted hootchie mama; the promotion of pole dancing as a great new exercise regimen for women; “Little Diva” make over parties for girls as young as 5—well, even those of us who truly believe that sex is and should be a healthy, normal, pleasurable part of life started getting very uneasy.

As a result, a new female icon began to take center stage: the sexpert. ThinkCosmo, Carrie Bradshaw, Monica Lewinsky. The sexpert knows a lot about sex, is comfortable with sex, initiates and enjoys sex on an equal footing with men, and talks a lot about sex with her girlfriends. The fantasy was that because of feminism and girl power, there was a new “sex positive” environment for women, and the double standard had been completely eliminated. The reality, of course, was different: this liberation came at a price. In exchange for this freedom—indeed, because of this freedom—young women were supposed to dress like call girls and had to start learning how to do this at an ever younger age. The sexpert persona came, in part, from the desires of young women for sexual freedom and equality, to enjoy sex without condemnation, and to have their sexuality seen as healthy and normal. But this America, where there is little that can’t be repackaged and sold back to us for a profit.

Here’s the twist that emerged. Some young women wanted sexual equity with men: that’s a claim for equal power. They didn’t want to be mere sex objects, they wanted to be active sexual agents. But while true and total sexual equality between men and women is still too threatening, it has nonetheless proved lucrative to flatter women that they have it. So the media began to highlight this message: it’s through sex and sexual display that women really have the power to get what they want. And because the true path to power comes from being an object of desire, girls and women should now actively choose—even celebrate and embrace—being sex objects. That’s the mark of a truly confident, can-do girl: one whose objectification isn’t imposed from without, but comes from within. You have to admit, this is a very slick contortion.

The best way to gain this kind of power is to cater to what men want. And you’re not acquiescing to men or to patriarchal sexual requirements: by submitting, you’re in the driver’s seat! Thus, in the hands of, say, Cosmo, the sexpert appreciates the ultimate requirement to please him(even at her expense or discomfort if necessary), to reassure him about his performance, and to constantly monitor and refine her ability to look sexy and to do what he wants and needs. This persona of the sexpert is almost always white, young, heterosexual, slim, busty, beautiful, and middle- or upper-middle-class (i.e., the media’s target demographic). She is ideal for the age of enlightened sexism because she is a hybrid of empowerment
and objectification. In this way, women’s hopes for sexual equity have become wrapped up in glossy images that sold jeans, underwear, magazines, music videos, and TV shows and allowed Victoria’s Secret to conquer the malls of America. And as the image and prevalence of the sexpert colonized more media outlets and hailed ever and ever younger girls, her image polarized women and men, especially along generational lines.

Take me—I was in my 20s and single in the 1970s, during the era that the movieBoogie Nights infamously brought to life. And I did believe, then and now, that sexual equality goes hand in hand, as it were, with political and economic equality. So I didn’t want my daughter, when she came of age, to be confronting the double standard or to be told that she had to figure out how to look sexy and then “just say no.”

That said, I didn’t feel it was necessary for her to be invited by the radio to sing along, at age 14, to Eamon’s classy 2004 hit record “Fuck It, I Don’t Want You Back,” with the immortal lyrics “Fuck what I said, it don’t mean shit now” and “Fuck you, you hoe.” Ditto for Shaggy’s “Wasn’t Me,” which urged her to “Picture this, we were both butt-naked banging on the bathroom floor.” Or there was 50 Cent bragging metaphorically, “I got the magic stick,” which evoked Lil’ Kim’s somewhat less allegorical response, “I got the magic clit.” The Beatles’ “Why Don’t We Do It in the Road” suddenly seemed like an Osmond Brothers song.

Now, if you don’t think that something really sick is going on in our country about girls—I mean really little girls—learning that their main asset is strutting their stuff, then you haven’t watched TLC’s abominable Toddlers and Tiaras, the behind-the-scenes reality TV show about beauty pageants for girls just out of (or maybe still in) diapers. With their spray-on tans, “flippers” (fake teeth inserted into the mouth to hide baby teeth gaps), fake eyelashes, and bare midriffs, these babies learn how to swivel their hips and push out their chests as they sashay before judges, including balding older white guys, as if they were Gypsy Rose Lee. Gross. How did we get here?

Support AlterNet by clicking here to purchase a copy of The Rise of Enlightened Sexism through our partner, Powell's, an independent bookstore.

Author, columnist and cultural critic Susan J. Douglas is the Catherine Neafie Kellogg professor of communication studies at the University of Michigan.

67 Male Privileges from The Masculine Mystique Blamed Right blog, Copyright July 2008 by F*ck M*sculinity

image of poster is from here

This is a newly discovered list, by me, anyway.

It appears to me to be an anglo-centric list, and often a list that is particular to white Western men, although it is not only applicable to that group of men.

Here are some other links to other male privileges checklists, including one from my blog.

YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS BLACK MALE PRIVILEGE

by L’Heureux Dumi Lewis, originally published at Uptown Notes

The Black Male Privileges Checklist By Jewel Woods © Renaissance Male Project (2008)

 

The 100 Male Privileges Checklist: The NEW and IMPROVED "Unpacking the Male Privileges Jockstrap", by Julian Real

I don't link to the one at Alas, A Blog by ampersand, because I understand and believe that he betrayed feminists when he sold his domain to someone who produces rapist, racist pornography.

Copyright credit for what follows is given in the title of this post as well as at the bottom of this post, which is cross-posted from this URL:

http://themasculinemystique.blogspot.com/2008/06/list-of-50-male-privileges.html

With sincere thanks to F*ck M*sculinity. All that follows is written by him, with assistance from people he credits. On his blog he has written some posts going into more detail about some of what follows.

June 11, 2008

The List of Male Privileges

I've met many Dudes who are convinced that men and women are completely equal in modern society. This belief, when aired in public, is quickly followed by the complaint that, "women have it so easy."

These are ludicrous assertions.

The belief that women have it easier than men is idiotic. The claim that men have no special privilege in our society is so far removed from reality that proponents must rely heavily on male privilege [mainly #22 - Privilege of Having No Privileges] to lend credence to their claim that no such privilege exists.

As proof to the contrary, below you will find (in mostly random order, as it would be hell to change the links now) my own continually-updated List of Male Privileges. Linked to each privilege (eventually) you shall find a full description of how the privilege is crafted for men and denied to women, how the privilege strengthens men as a class and harms women (and in some cases, men [1] and society as well), and how the privilege is derived from rape and violence against women, which is the foundation of the Masculine Mystique. From this list you will see how, due to all these factors, men who claim these privileges cannot be considered feminists, proponents of human rights, or good people.

Update! You don't have to take my word for it either! It turns out that Alas, a blog had this same idea years ago. Their list was itself inspired by Peggy McIntosh, whose white privilege list inspired the whole shebang. That's what I get for not googling enough beforehand. Oh well, maybe if enough of us point out the obvious in unison, that enlightened "Duh!" moment (where men begin to see the inequality and suffering of women in their daily lives) will begin to spread.

One can always hope.


The List of Male Privileges

1. Rape -Destroying the entire life of another human being. The evil root of all male privilege.
2. Ownership of Women's Bodies - From prostitution, to the "pro-life" movement, to the marginalization of women's self-defense, to the conservative fight against HPV vaccination, women are subject to a complete gender apartheid.
3. Prostitution - The institutionalization of rape through a global network of physical and economic violence.
4. Privilege of Violence Against Women -Men are allowed to use violence to both defend themselves and to hurt women. Women are not allowed to use violence in self-defense. When assaulted by a man, women are expected to acquiesce completely to the assault, never seek retribution, and die quietly.
5. All Women Are Sexual Prospects - All women, without exception, are part of the Sex Class ruled by men, to be subject to dehumanization and gender terrorism.
6. Male Gaze - Men's sexual perspective, embraced by society, normalizes the dehumanization of women and girls, and inoculates men from being dehumanized themselves.
7. Pornography - Men are provided with widespread access to prostitution-based propaganda that promotes their privilege to destroy the lives of women. Pornography has now spread to mainstream culture, further cementing women into the role of the Sex Class.
8. Privilege to Make the Rules - The rulers write the laws and history, and so men write laws and revise history to benefit themselves at the expense of women.
9. Men Own Religion - Men craft the majority's perception of the universe to normalize anything they do as divine and good. The lead supreme beings in the vast majority of religions are male.
10. Marriage - The purpose of marriage, as an institution, is to sanctify the sexual ownership of women by men. This has been the purpose of marriage for thousands of years, and for the vast majority marriages on Earth that purpose continues to this day.
11. Privilege to Define Everything - Men's perspectives and values are the only valid ones in society. The intentions of men's actions are more important to society than the actual effects their actions have on women. Men's ideas about women supersede women's reality. Men can declare themselves feminist when they decide to be, or even oppressed when convenient. Men's claims will be taken as fair and objective, and will remain uncontested even when they make no sense. [Thanks to Varnish Eater, acidbill]
12. Privilege to Define Women - Men are the ones who routinely analyze, define, and judge women's lives. Any discussion taken from an actual women's perspective is seen as "unorthodox". Men can define or scapegoat women however they like. From hysteria to insecurity, men can project their own worst qualities onto women and blame women for their own oppression. Women must constantly explain and defend their own thoughts and actions to men when they fail to conform to men's expectations. Even then, men can reinterpret women's explanations as they see fit. [Thanks to Varnish Eater]
13. Privilege of Not Being Judged - From not being criticized for their mistakes, to the sanctity of their personal choice, to neglecting their families, to getting away with murder, judgment is always restrained when it comes to men's actions. Men can be criminals without punishment, vicious without scorn or loss of social status, and failures without fear of rebuke.
14. Men are the Default Gender - Men are considered by society to be the default gender. Men are rarely ever targeted, stereotyped, or held liable because of their gender. This default status is the mental framework used by society to ignore male privilege and male favoritism. Men are simply seen as human. Women, on the other hand, are seen as the exception to the all the male-centric norms of society. Gender stereotypes are always present in the perception of women.
15. Privilege of Unquestioned Majority - Men are treated as if they were the only gender on the planet. Men can assume to speak for the majority, and their declarations are automatically assumed to have the backing of the majority. Despite being only half the population, men are given the overwhelming majority of resources, from medical research dollars, to media attention, to political representation. Any attempts to advocate for equal representation of women is regarded as unorthodox and exceptional.
16. Privilege of Women's Invisibility - When convenient, men can treat women as if they don't even exist. Men use this privilege to take credit for women's work, to claim opportunities and resources for themselves by ignoring competition from women, and to ensure that the murders of women remain unsolved and undocumented. Men use "gender blindness" to ignore the oppression of women altogether. Any attempt to fight the abuse and oppression of women will be ignored unless men are similarly oppressed, at which point aiding the oppressed men will get priority care.
17. Primacy of Men's Comfort - From planning family vacations to deciding what distant suburb to live in, all decisions are evaluated by men's comfort levels. Even decisions made for women's safety must not infinge upon men's comfort levels. Women must make whatever personal and financial sacrifices are necessary to meet the decisions arrived at by men. All attempts at ending the abuse and oppression of women will be vehemently opposed if they inhibit men's comfort levels in any way.
18. Freedom From Harassment - Men's bodies are not aggressively sexualized. Men can expect to not be sexually harassed, to not be concerned about phallic-looking objects, and can legally remove their shirts in public. [Thanks to Anonymous]
19. Privilege of Safe Sex - Men are the initiators of sex, and can enjoy sexual privacy and no liability for their sexual history. Even Hugh Hefner's sex is private when he wants it to be. In contrast, women are the targets of sexual advances, bear the entire burden of contraception and pregnancy, and are judged based on men's sexual perception of them. [Thanks to Anonymous]
20. Privilege to Speak - From blogging, to politics, to stand-up comedy, men have the privilege to speak publicly, with authority, and without harassment for doing so. From birth, women are taught to be deferential when men interrupt, to not interrupt while men are speaking, to accept verbal abuse without complaint, and to be quiet in general. Men expect women to listen to them at all times, even if said women are their bosses or are busy doing something else. Women's voices are dismissed as irritating, and women who speak for themselves in public, or who publicly contradict men, are met with hostility from society. [Thanks to wiggles]
21. Privilege to End Debate - Men can use their tyranny of speech to quiet everyone else.
22. Privilege of Having No Privileges - When the abuse of male privilege becomes uncomfortable for men, they can choose to be oblivious of their privilege. Men can choose to be oblivious of some or all of their privileges, as is convenient. Men can claim parity where none exists, claim oppression whenever it is useful, and deflect any resentment which might impinge upon their social status. Men can even blame women for the harms they suffer under male privilege. [Thanks to Varnish Eater, acidbill]
23. Privilege of Relative Safety - Men don't live their entire lives in fear. There is no gender terrorism for men. Men can risk dropping their guard, or being alone. [Thanks to Anonymous]
24. The Inviolate Male Body - A man's body is his castle. Men enjoy the sovereignty of self. They can expect to not be physically violated when attacked.
25. Privilege of Space - All spaces are by default men's spaces. Men are allowed men-only spaces without complaint, and can expect entry into almost all women-only spaces.
26. Privilege of Privacy and Personal Space - Men can expect privacy and lots of personal space around them when in public. Men can also intrude upon a woman's personal space whenever they want.
27. Only Male Attributes Are Valued - The vast majority of all protagonists present in society will be male, because masculinity is revered and femininity is reviled.
28. Privilege to Network - Relations among men are valued by society more than relations between men and women or relations between women. From finding new clients, to nepotism, to inside jobs, men can trust their networks to help them out, and to gang up and push out rival women.
29. Privilege of Harassment - Men can be disgusting, obnoxious, hyperbolic, belittling, dismissive, and even violent towards women without consequence. If a woman tries to confront a man's behavior, he can always claim that his violent harassment was "a joke", and counter with the claim that she should "toughen up". At this point, society will become hostile towards the victim until she backs down, apologizes for questioning the man's moral fiber, and acquiesces to the harassment.
30. Privilege of Failure - From breaking household appliances to restarting careers, men are given the security to try, fail, and try again.
31. Praise for Mediocrity - Men can expect their mundane accomplishments to be treated like heroic feats. Men can also wallow in the pitiful standards set for men's behavior when it is convenient, with little repercussion.
32. Privilege to Celebrate - Only men's victories are celebrated in public, and the majority of people in these victory celebrations are men. Men are also allowed to be violent when celebrating.
33. Judgments Not Made on Men's Appearance - Men's clothes "say" little about them, and men can be fat with far fewer consequenses than women.
34. Privilege of Control - Men are allowed to co-opt control of anything that a woman controls, whenever they want it. Men are also not responsible for anything that they do not want control of. This behavior is excused as part of men's "natural leadership qualities", and is never seen as rude or obnoxious by the larger society. [Thanks to Lilithc]
35. Privilege to be Practical - It is normal for men to be comfortable and mobile when dressed. Women's fashion is impractically expensive, time consuming, and deliberately inhibits comfort, mobility, and safety. Utilitarianism is seen as a virtue in men, while women who forgo impractical clothing or embrace utilitarianism are chided for "letting themselves go".
36. Privilege of Having Potential - Men's work is valued. Men are given many more opportunities to be successful, and are praised more than women when they succeed.
37. Baby Einsteins - Boys are valued more than girls. Society spends more time, attention, and resources on boys than on girls. Throughout the world, the parents of a girl are more likely to divorce than the parents of a boy. Divorced women with girls are substantially less likely to remarry than divorced women with boys. Parents of girls are also much more likely to try for another child than parents of boys.
38. Scions - Heirs to power and property are almost entirely male, and have been for thousands of years. Heiresses are few and far between, and typically reviled by society.
39. Privilege of Women's Labor - From keeping house, to raising men's children, to "PHT Degrees", women's unpaid and undervalued labor is the foundation for the easy lives of men. Men can also lay claim to the praise and rewards that result from women's labor. [Thanks to fff, acidbill]
40. Boys Can be Boys - Young boys are typically given the freedom to play and be a child, while young girls typically do household chores. The innocence of boys is protected, while 54% of girls will be sexually abused.
41. Privilege of Extra Free Time - Unburdened with chores or other domestic responsibilities, men have much more time for leisure.
42. Privilege of Career - Men are expected to have a career, while women are expected to sacrifice their careers in order to care for a man and raise his family. Similarly, a man is more likely to get hired and promoted in any given job than a woman. This favoritism towards men increases as the job becomes more prestigious. [Thanks to Alas, a blog]
43. Men in Business - Although women make up almost half of America's labor force, in 2005 only 8 Fortune 500 companies have women CEOs or presidents, 67 of those 500 companies don't have any women corporate officers, and the numbers are getting worse.
44. Men in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) - Men are seen as having automatic ability in STEM fields, and are encouraged to explore them. Meanwhile, women are actively discouraged from these fields. Discrimination of women is rampant in STEM fields. Women make up less than half of all scientists and engineers in the US, and less than one-third of all doctorate and professional degree holders in STEM fields. [Thanks to RedComet]
45. 23% More Pay - Even with identical qualifications, men still make 23% more than women when working the exact same job.
46. Privilege of Family Fortunes - 90% of the world's billionaires are men, and they didn't get there by chance.
47. All Things Designed By Men, For Men - Everything from car seats, to drugs, to women's fashions are designed around men's desires. Men's bodies are the default template for all designed products, and the male body is the default Homo Sapien studied in medical centers. Men's needs are the only requirements for a design (for example, try using an iPhone with manicured nails).
48. Privilege of Tech - Boys get more time on family computers and more access to technology. Despite the Nintendo Wii, the majority of big-title computer games are designed to degrade women. Despite women making up a majority of Internet consumers, misogyny dominates the computer industry.
49. Internet Presence - Even though more people use the web to buy greeting cards than porn, everyone assumes that the primary use of the web is pornography. The Internet has been claimed by popular culture to be a giant men's club.
50. Privilege of Ownership - Men can take the best of anything that is available, even if it belongs to someone else. Women who complain are castigated for being sensitive or "petty". Plagarism laws protect men's work more than women's work. When a man finds something for the first time, he can lay claim to "first discovering" it with little fear of correction. [Thanks to Lilithc]
51. Trophy Wives - Using ritualized male privilege to enslave young women and abuse older women.
52. Privilege of Good Medicine - Men get the best medical care, the majority of medical research dollars. Breast cancer, for example, remains one of the highest killers of women, while new techniques and even surgical robots have made prostate cancer into one of the most curable cancers.
53. Privilege of Labor - High paying labor-intensive jobs that do not require advanced degrees are all rife with misogyny and dominated by men. If any field becomes dominated by women, the work becomes underpaid and undervalued.
54. Privilege to Be Single - Men can be single into their 30's and no one notices, and face far less harassment if they choose not to have kids. It is also acceptable for men to remain "bachelors for life" (although most eventually opt for the male privileges inherent in marriage). Women are under fierce pressure to get married and have kids as soon as possible. [Thanks to Anonymous]
55. Privilege to Grow Old - Men can go gray, get fat, or age in any way they wish. For men, aging adds wisdom, respect, or "character". Women are under constant pressure to do whatever it takes, including surgery, to remain "young looking". Anything less, and a woman is admonished for "letting herself go". [Thanks to Debi Crow]
56. Privilege of Hair - Men can have hair, on their heads or body, and do not have to take care of it. Women are seen as lazy, unhygienic, and disgusting if they do not remove or arduously style all the hair on their bodies. Men are allowed to be bald, whereas women must use wigs. [Thanks to RedComet]
57. Women Expected to Please Men - Men can expect smiles from all women at all times. Men expect women to drop what they are doing and be attentive to men while they are talked at. Women's political views are seen as playthings for men to move around at will. [Thanks to Flyinfur]
58. Privilege to Eat - The consumption of food (especially desirable foods like deserts, alcohol, and meat) is only socially acceptable for men. As adolescents, boys are encouraged to eat, while girls are discouraged from eating. This lack of adequate nutrition results in girl's growth being stunted in childhood, which has led to the false belief that women are "naturally" smaller than men.
59. Privilege of Selective Misogyny - Men can choose not to exercise male privilege over a particular woman at any time, as a reward for approved behavior, or for simple convenience. Men can selectively favor women, and decide which women deserve consideration/rights/empathy as is convenient to them. Men can also take away such favors and reassert their privilege at any time. [Thanks to Varnish Eater]
60. Toys! - Male-coded toys (whether video games for kids, or cars and iphones for adults) are of higher quality and more diverse than female-coded toys. Female-coded toys have cheaper construction, and designed to train girls in domesticity and femininity.
61. The Privilege of Vocabulary - The very dictionary is stacked in men's favor. Words that reference a group of people typically default to a male noun (chairman, mankind, you guys, etc.). Language makes it easy for any man to lash out at women, while the words needed to retaliate against men do not exist. [Thanks to Jezebella]
62. The Privilege of Guns - Men are expected to know how to handle a gun. Boys are taught how to shoot from an early age by fathers and peers. AirSoft, Paintball, Laser Tag, video games, the army, and all other gun-based social settings are maintained solely as realms for boys and men. Women are denied access to these powerful and deadly tools.
63. The Privilege of Pleasure - Entire industries, from the benign to the barbaric, revolve around men's physical pleasure. Men's physical pleasure is lauded my the media and condoned by moralists. In contrast, women's physical pleasure is either demonized or denied to exist in the first place. Women are expected to please men, and to only receive physical gratification within the context of serving men.
64. Privilege of Mobility - Men are given the freedom to see the world. Men can travel by themselves, move their residence wherever they want, and take traveling jobs (such as couriers and seamen) while leaving women behind to care for their family and children. Women are forbidden from traveling by themselves, under the pretense that doing so is too dangerous for them.
65. Privilege of Passivity - With their lives relatively safe, free from negative judgments, and with the expectation for women to take care of them, men have the freedom to be passive, and are unaccountable for their passivity.
66. Privilege to Say "No!" - When a man says "no", it is accepted as final. When a woman says "no", it is seen by men as a challenge, and its utterance is interpreted as the start of negotiations toward an inevitable "yes". [Thanks to Daisy P]
67. Privilege to be an Outsider - Men are given the latitude and relative safety to reject social mandates. Men can say no to their families, ignore popular culture, reject social norms, and plow their own course in life. Counter-cultures cater to men, and form safe places and support structures for men. For women, the consequences of disobeying society and family are much harsher. Society is much more dangerous for lone women as well. Counter-cultures rarely offer a similar level of safety and autonomy to women, and in many cases are hostile to them.

Loads of thanks to everyone who has collaborated with me on this list!

[1] The negative consequences of male privilege are not nearly as horrible for men as they are for women, but they do exist, occasionally.




Copyright June 2008 by F*ck M*sculinity

On Fascism, Forests, and Freedom, including an essay by Dr. Vandana Shiva

image is from here

When we consider the Earth and its many disappearing ecosystems, and the many plants, waterways, animals, and human societies dependent on them, let us keep front and center the hundreds of Indigenous societies and nations within which lives are far more directly connected to matters of pollution, colonisation, and globalisation than are the non-Indigenous people of the white Western/Northern World. Increasingly, along with every other population that lives away from unsustainable cities, Indigenous people who have historically relied on the fertile land and flowing water directly, are being relocated and/or forced into urban areas, far from their sacred sites, alienated from their then-trampled homelands, and away from their ways of surviving as a society. The dominant capitalist invaders come and take over; use up and destroy. That's what they do; that's all they know how to do.

What upsets me about the white het male-led environmental movement is how most of its leaders still assume everything exists for whites, including Indigenous, Black, Brown, and Asian people. It still centers white racist and white supremacist ways of being and thinking as pivotal in creating arguments for why the destruction of the Earth is a bad thing. When I hear whites speak about human "population control" as a necessary condition for achieving eco-justice and relative peace on Earth, I never hear whites calling for a reduction in the white-only population even though it is primarily whites who, over the last few hundred years, have consumed far more resources than any other racial group. And committed more genocide. And committed more ecocide. The malignant cancer of the Earth, culturally and politically, not biologically or genetically, is white and male supremacist, and is upheld most fiercely and lethally by white men.

When whites speak of "population control", I hear the pro-genocidal contempt, disrespect, or disregard for people of color. I hear white voices with thick German accents to my Ashkenazi Jewish ears, white voices feeling oh-so-entitled to tell other (darker) people what they should be doing "for the betterment of all". And, surprise: the not-so-novel idea is for those people of color to stop reproducing so much. Again.

So when whites call for a reduction in human population, in their inspired rallying speeches on behalf of the Earth, let whites call for an end to whiteness (white supremacy), which, along with manhood (male supremacy), are the two deadliest forms of social-cultural-political ideology-as-existence known to humanity. To understand how it is that the White Man came to be so dominant and oppressive, and murderous, please read Yurugu, by Dr. Marimba Ani.

What follows was found by me on ZCommunications but is originally from Asian Age. *Here* is the Asian Age link.

Forests And Freedom

---

By Vandana Shiva

Source: Asian Age

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

   

Vandana Shiva's ZSpace Page

2011 is the year of the forest. It is also Rabindranath Tagore’s 150th birth anniversary.

Forests were central to Tagore’s works and institution building as they have been for India’s creative expressions through the centuries.

As Tagore wrote in The Religion of the Forests, the ideal of perfection preached by the forest dwellers of ancient India runs through the heart of our classical literature and still dominates our mind. The forests are sources of water as the women of Chipko showed in the 1970s. They are the storehouse of biodiversity.

The biodiversity of the forest teaches us lessons of democracy, of leaving space for others while drawing sustenance from the common web of life. (In his essay Tapovan, Tagore writes: “Indian civilisation has been distinctive in locating its source of regeneration, material and intellectual, in the forest, not the city. India’s best ideas have come where man was in communion with trees and rivers and lakes, away from the crowds. The peace of the forest has helped the intellectual evolution of man. The culture of the forest has fuelled culture of Indian society. The culture that has arisen from the forest has been influenced by the diverse processes of renewal of life, which are always at play in the forest, varying from species to species, from season to season, in sight and sound and smell. The unifying principle of life in diversity, of democratic pluralism, thus became the principle of Indian civilisation.”

It is this “unity in diversity” that is the basis of both ecological sustainability and democracy. Diversity without unity becomes the source of conflict and contest. Uniformity without diversity becomes the ground for external control. This is true of both nature and culture.

In Tagore’s writings, the forest was not just the source of knowledge and freedom it was the source of beauty and joy, of art and aesthetics, of harmony and perfection. It symbolised the universe. In The Religion of the Forest, the poet says our attitude of mind “guides our attempts to establish relations with the universe either by conquest or by union, either through the cultivation of power or through that of sympathy”.

The forest teaches us union and compassion.

For Tagore, our relationship with the forest and nature is a relationship that allows us to experience our humanity. Humans and nature are not separate we are one.

“In our dreams, nature stands in her own right, proving that she has her great function, to impart the peace of the eternal to human emotions”.

It is this permanence, this peace, this joy of living not by conquest and domination, but by co-existence and cooperation that is at the heart of a forest culture. The forest also teaches us “enoughness” as equity, enjoying the gifts of nature without exploitation and accumulation. In Religion of the Forest, Tagore quotes from the ancient texts, written in the forest:

“Ishavasyam idam sarvam yat kinch jagatyam jagat
Yena tyak tena bhunjitha
Ma gradha kasyasvit dhanam”

(Know all that moves in this moving world as enveloped by god, and find enjoyment through renunciation not through greed of possession)

No species in a forest appropriates the share of other species to nutrients, water, and the sun’s energy. Every species sustains itself in mutual cooperation with others. This is Earth Democracy.

The end of consumerism and accumulation is the beginning of the joy of living. That is why the tribals of contemporary India from Kalinganagar to Niyamgiri and Bastar are resisting leaving their forest homes and abandoning their forest culture. The conflict between greed and compassion, conquest and cooperation, violence and harmony that Tagore wrote about continues today. And it is the forest which can show us the way beyond this conflict by reconnecting to nature and finding sources for own freedom. For the powerful it means freedom from greed. For the excluded it means freedom from want, from hunger and thirst, from dispossession and disposability.

Diversity is at the heart of the living systems of Gaia, including her forests. Tagore defined monocultures as the “exaggeration of sameness” and he wrote: “Life finds its truth and beauty not in exaggeration of sameness, but in harmony.”

Harmony in diversity is the nature of the forest, whereas monotonous sameness is the nature of industrialism based on a mechanical worldview. This is what Tagore saw as the difference between the West and India.

“The civilisation of the West has in it the spirit of the machine which must move; and to that blind movement human lives are offered as fuel, keeping up the stream power” (The Spirit of Freedom).

Globalisation has spread the civilisation based on power and greed and the spirit of the machine worldwide. And the global spread of the “passion of profit-making and the drunkenness of power” is spreading fear of freedoms.

A civilisation based on power and greed is a civilisation based on fear and violence.

“The people who have sacrificed their souls to the passion of profit making and the drunkenness of power are constantly pursued by phantoms of panic and suspicion, and therefore they are ruthless. They are morally incapable of allowing freedom to others” (The Spirit of Freedom).

Greed and accumulation must lead to slavery.

Today the rule of money and greed dominates our society, economy and politics. The culture of conquest is invading into our tribal lands and forests through mining of iron-ore, bauxite and coal.

Every forest area has become a war zone. Every tribal is defined as a “Maoist” by a militarised corporate state appropriating the land and natural resources of the tribals. And every defender of the rights of the forest and forest dwellers is being treated as a criminal. This is the context of Dr Binayak Sen’s life sentence.

If India is to survive ecologically and politically, if India has to stay democratic, if Indian citizen is to be guaranteed, we need to give up the road of conquest and destruction and take the road of union and conservation, we need to cultivate peace and compassion instead of power and violence.

We need to turn, once again, to the forest as our perennial teachers of peace and freedom, of diversity and democracy.

Dr Vandana Shiva is the executive director of Navdanya Trust

FREEDOM for the Scott Sisters!! Now please send your prayers to them for health and well-being

image of poster is from here

Along with the release from prison of Sara Kruzan, I remain hopeful that more women wrongfully imprisoned by the very CRIMINAL injustice system in the U.S. will also be released in 2011. What we need is more public/activist attention put on wrongful arrests, convictions, and sentences for women of color in the U.S. When rich white men steal millions, or run multi-million-dollar companies into the ground, due to complete corruption, they are let go with million-dollar golden parachutes and then are rehired to drive another company into the ground. Compare that to what happened to the Scott Sisters and tell me we don't live in a country that isn't white male supremacist. If you try to, I'm calling you a liar or a complete fool.

Congratulations and Mazel Tov to Gladys and Jamie Scott. Blessings to both of you to the depths of your souls. I hope the kidney transplant proves life-saving and life-enhancing. And that both of you heal well and quickly.

All that follows is a cross-post from ColorLines, *here*.

Scott Sisters Finally Set Free

Sisters Gladys(R) and Jaime Scott. Courtesy of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Photo: HO/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom

by Jamilah King

Monday, January 3 2011, 11:29 AM EST

Gladys and Jamie Scott are free. The two sisters have spent nearly seventeen years in a Mississippi prison after being convicted as teenagers of an $11 robbery back in 1994. Last week, the state’s governor, Haley Barbour, finally [suspended the life sentences of] the two sisters, offering a long awaited victory in the highly publicized case.

“We all worked together to make justice work in this state,” said National NAACP President Benjamin Jealous. “I’m here to thank the people and the governor of Mississippi. When you are right, you are right. Gov. Barbour, you were right today.”

Despite receiving praise from some national media, Barbour’s actions are drawing skepticism from some close watchers who say the move was made more out of crass political calculation than compassion. The governor’s decision to pardon the two sisters came less than two weeks after he reportedly had made comments that, in effect, sang the praises of his hometown’s white supremacist group. Barbour had previously denied at least two requests to pardon the sisters.

Barbour’s suspension of the Scott sisters’ life sentences* also came with an order for Gladys Scott to donate a kidney to her sister Jamie, which she had already volunteered to do on her own when her sister was first diagnosed with kidney failure. And so far the state of Mississippi refuses to pay for the transplant, even though doctors have found that the state prison system’s deplorable living conditions and medical care are at least partly to blame for Jamie Scott’s condition.

Still, the pardon is a major civil rights victory, and one that’s largely due to unrelenting organizing over the past year.

“I’m just so blessed and happy. After 16 years, me and my sister can go home to our family who need us,” Gladys Scott told reporters after the decision.

• A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that the Scott sisters had been pardoned. Gov. Barbour has instead suspended each woman’s life sentence.

LikeDislike  5 people liked this.

Community

Disqus

Showing 13 comments

Sort by  Popular now Best rating Newest first Oldest first    Subscribe by email   Subscribe by RSS

• abcd4006 18 hours ago

  The fact that the Govenor had earlier denied at least two requests to pardon the sisters makes me sick.Something is terrribly wrong with a criminal justice system that can send these then two teenage sisters to prison for life for such a minor crime.It would seem that it is not a coincidence that both of these sisters were black.I'm wondering if this same sentence would have been handed down if they were white? Barbour’s decision to pardon the two sisters came less than two weeks after he reportedly had made comments that, in effect, sang the praises of his hometown’s white supremacist group.What is the world coming to?