Farrah Fawcett was 62. Young, to me. Michael Jackson - - really young. I'm 66 and I'm an ageist. It's like being a sexist in that I make assumptions about people because of their age (just so I'm not being confusing - not because of their sex or gender). Very narrow-minded, I know.
I'm surrounded by people in their 20s, 30s and 40s. At work, at home, in various activities, they're all young. They talk "facebook" - I don't understand most of the abbreviated lingo, let alone what people are saying when they tweet. I struggle, still, with computers. Adding phone numbers to my BlackBerry- can't figure it out. And just what is the difference between CDs and DVDs. I still use an actual film camera - but I'm getting ready to buy a digital camera.
Anyone remember carbon copies - real ones, made with carbon paper in typewriters - that's BEFORE Xerox and photocopying, before faxing, before emails. I know this is boring to talk about, but it's also amazing how some things change so quickly. But we still send our children to die in wars, so some things don't change. And we still fall passionately, madly in love.
I used to look younger than my years - and looking youthful has become my final vanity (unless there's something else to be vain about that I don't know). But lately, I feel old. My muscles and joints ache and I have wrinkles and am starting to get those jiggling arms and chest wrinkles. (This is more than anyone needs to know.)
You're wasting your time if you are vain about physical attributes - whatever, great upper arms, great abs, beautiful hair - they'll all go. You're wasting your time if you are vain about accomplishments - someone else will best you, someone else is smarter and wiser and - here's the really annoying thing - more modest, humane, compassionate, good. And then your memory goes and you're not so smart anymore, either.
I never watched Charley's Angels (ok - maybe once) but I'll miss Farrah. She was so vulnerable, I guess like Marilyn Monroe. I wish Farrah had married Ryan. Michael Jackson was a fantastic performer - but I won't miss him. We have lots of film of him doing the Moonwalk. But I'll miss all the years that are gone. Mostly, though, I'm glad for all the days that are left - and curious about what bizarre, amazing, brilliant, soul-expanding thing will happen next and next and next.
RIP, Farrah. And Michael.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
In the Hot Tub
At the NOW conference, I went to the hotel hot tub one evening to relax and there met a woman - I'll call her Sue - who gave me a lot to think about.
Sue is a care provider for a young man who was at the hotel for the Power Soccer tournament (this is a tournament for athletes who use a wheelchair). He had been deprived of oxygen as an infant and as a result has very little ability to control his body or talk. Sue said he is bright, sociable, and once had a girlfriend and wanted to have a relationship again.
But this is Sue's story...
Sue asked me why I was at the hotel and then asked me what NOW does. I gave her the "brochure" speech - oldest and largest women's organization, with six issue areas. She immediately told me her story, wondering if I could help in some way.
Sue has allowed a woman (aged about 20-21) - I'll call her Joan - to stay in the 2 bedroom apartment she shares with her husband and her young son. Sue had worked briefly with Joan at a grocery store. One day, Sue was driving and saw Joan on the street with her baby. Joan and the baby had just been thrown out of the place where they were staying, apparently because of an ongoing conflict with the family whose home it is.
Sue took Joan to her home and there Joan has been since - about 10 months now. Joan receives a small amount of assistance ($600/month) and has food stamps; she has had some government help in a job search. She has no family in the area and doesn't know where the baby's father is. Sue has helped in every way possible - looked for appropriate jobs (Joan has administrative skills so at least theoretically could find a job, although this market makes it all the harder), looked for affordable housing, offered to take the baby when Joan went for a job interview, found a free parenting class for Joan, and more and more. She takes no rent from Joan. Joan is reluctant to look for a job. She spends many days shopping. Sue thought they could work something out if Joan watched her son (especially as Joan was already watching her own baby) but that fell apart quickly when he was found wandering outside while Joan slept on the couch. I suggested Joan was depressed and needed medical attention, but Sue didn't think that was the case. Apparently, Joan doesn't think she needs such assistance either.
I tried to articulate a NOW "perspective" - meaning, to talk about the damage done by welfare "reform," how we needed more job training, better supports for women, etc. I talked about how we needed to change the structure...about economic justice, the fault being with society, etc.
Honestly, it sounded pretty weak to me as I said it.
Here is a compassionate, smart, hard-working woman - Sue - who has a problem that all of NOW's fine words and legal arguments cannot do anything about - at least not in the present or near future. And another woman - Joan - who is stuck in inertia, refusing to take control of her own life.
I tried pop-psychology - saying this was Joan's problem, not Sue's. But Sue doesn't want to put a baby in the street. Period. Sue and her husband tried several times to lay down an ultimatum to Joan - find a place and move out by such-and-so date - but Joan just continued her life, sleeping on the living room couch. She doesn't have a key - she climbs in through a back crawl space when Sue isn't there.
Sue's going to try the ultimatum route again - telling Joan she has to leave by a certain date - and she's also going to close up the crawl space.
So this is the real-life situation of two women who - I fear - NOW cannot help. At the conference, we fought over who should run the organization for the next four years. We had spirited discussion over the state of NOW and (according to press reports) whether we should focus on activism or lobbying. We asked ourselves, who would be better for NOW.
I know it matters who runs the organization. But it matters more what we can do for women. I think we would be stronger and more relevant if we focused on real-life facts - such as the situation of Sue and Joan and all the other women in need and at risk - rather than fight over who to blame for our internal problems. No, I don't mean we should provide social welfare services. I mean we should be real. To be real, we need to hear more from Sue and Joan - and less from policy people, our own activists (who all seem to have jobs), and super-privileged women who have nothing better to do than go to Democratic Party confabs and bitch about how the party has sold them out.
I'd love to hear comments.
Sue is a care provider for a young man who was at the hotel for the Power Soccer tournament (this is a tournament for athletes who use a wheelchair). He had been deprived of oxygen as an infant and as a result has very little ability to control his body or talk. Sue said he is bright, sociable, and once had a girlfriend and wanted to have a relationship again.
But this is Sue's story...
Sue asked me why I was at the hotel and then asked me what NOW does. I gave her the "brochure" speech - oldest and largest women's organization, with six issue areas. She immediately told me her story, wondering if I could help in some way.
Sue has allowed a woman (aged about 20-21) - I'll call her Joan - to stay in the 2 bedroom apartment she shares with her husband and her young son. Sue had worked briefly with Joan at a grocery store. One day, Sue was driving and saw Joan on the street with her baby. Joan and the baby had just been thrown out of the place where they were staying, apparently because of an ongoing conflict with the family whose home it is.
Sue took Joan to her home and there Joan has been since - about 10 months now. Joan receives a small amount of assistance ($600/month) and has food stamps; she has had some government help in a job search. She has no family in the area and doesn't know where the baby's father is. Sue has helped in every way possible - looked for appropriate jobs (Joan has administrative skills so at least theoretically could find a job, although this market makes it all the harder), looked for affordable housing, offered to take the baby when Joan went for a job interview, found a free parenting class for Joan, and more and more. She takes no rent from Joan. Joan is reluctant to look for a job. She spends many days shopping. Sue thought they could work something out if Joan watched her son (especially as Joan was already watching her own baby) but that fell apart quickly when he was found wandering outside while Joan slept on the couch. I suggested Joan was depressed and needed medical attention, but Sue didn't think that was the case. Apparently, Joan doesn't think she needs such assistance either.
I tried to articulate a NOW "perspective" - meaning, to talk about the damage done by welfare "reform," how we needed more job training, better supports for women, etc. I talked about how we needed to change the structure...about economic justice, the fault being with society, etc.
Honestly, it sounded pretty weak to me as I said it.
Here is a compassionate, smart, hard-working woman - Sue - who has a problem that all of NOW's fine words and legal arguments cannot do anything about - at least not in the present or near future. And another woman - Joan - who is stuck in inertia, refusing to take control of her own life.
I tried pop-psychology - saying this was Joan's problem, not Sue's. But Sue doesn't want to put a baby in the street. Period. Sue and her husband tried several times to lay down an ultimatum to Joan - find a place and move out by such-and-so date - but Joan just continued her life, sleeping on the living room couch. She doesn't have a key - she climbs in through a back crawl space when Sue isn't there.
Sue's going to try the ultimatum route again - telling Joan she has to leave by a certain date - and she's also going to close up the crawl space.
So this is the real-life situation of two women who - I fear - NOW cannot help. At the conference, we fought over who should run the organization for the next four years. We had spirited discussion over the state of NOW and (according to press reports) whether we should focus on activism or lobbying. We asked ourselves, who would be better for NOW.
I know it matters who runs the organization. But it matters more what we can do for women. I think we would be stronger and more relevant if we focused on real-life facts - such as the situation of Sue and Joan and all the other women in need and at risk - rather than fight over who to blame for our internal problems. No, I don't mean we should provide social welfare services. I mean we should be real. To be real, we need to hear more from Sue and Joan - and less from policy people, our own activists (who all seem to have jobs), and super-privileged women who have nothing better to do than go to Democratic Party confabs and bitch about how the party has sold them out.
I'd love to hear comments.
Comment on NOW National Election Post
Besides the foolish defensiveness from PUMAs who really believe that voting Republican was the best way to get back at Obama (did they vote for Ralph nader, too?), there was a sensible comment, which I'd like to share:
"I think it's really interesting to see how inter-group politics can take up so much energy and time, which could be used toward working for the organization's goals. Seems like there's need for a new system of leadership, which promotes solidarity instead of divisiveness. Thanks for providing this account so people can learn about the inner workings!"
To the person who suggested that if I really cared about NOW I would be quiet about what happened at the conference, I say:
I think it's critical to talk about what happened. How else will we understand each other?
"I think it's really interesting to see how inter-group politics can take up so much energy and time, which could be used toward working for the organization's goals. Seems like there's need for a new system of leadership, which promotes solidarity instead of divisiveness. Thanks for providing this account so people can learn about the inner workings!"
To the person who suggested that if I really cared about NOW I would be quiet about what happened at the conference, I say:
I think it's critical to talk about what happened. How else will we understand each other?
Update: Planes, Trains, & Attack-Dog Feminism
Note - there are a few factual changes and some explanatory info is added
Landing at National after 5 days at the NOW conference in Indianapolis, I decided to save a few dollars and took Metro home. Blue line to orange line, then a bus. Smooth and fast, while elsewhere on the red line, people were mangled and dying. So arbitrary - you're on one line, you live; another, you don't.
Anyone who thinks that because they've planned and worked and saved and been good citizens and good parents, they and the ones they love are safe - is in a dreamworld. Life doesn't make sense.
For example, all of those who thought the "dream team" of Latifa Lyles, etc., would win the NOW presidency and vice-presidencies...because we needed a youthful, fresh face for the aging, tired women's movement...were wrong. Eight votes - that's all it took for Latifa, a woman of color in her early thirties, to lose to Terry O'Neill, a mid-50s white woman. (Race does matter - a lot - in the women's movement.) Terry and her team may succeed in turning NOW around - I hope so - but I'm worried. There's nothing fresh there. Policy ideas are stale and positions are delivered in a rote, scripted fashion. The veterans on the ticket - Terry and the Illinois NOW prez - do not inspire me in terms of vision or practical skills or ability to deliver. The "new" faces on the ticket - two women in their late 20s, early 30s - have a lot to learn. A lot.
Eight votes. The red line.
A few people have asked me to write more about the NOW elections. Both teams - Latifa Lyles and Terry O'Neill - had strengths and weaknesses. But it's not about ideals or visions or even skills - it's about who can turn out the most voters. Total numbers of voters - 404 (really). [There were more people than that at the conference - but 407 were credentialed to vote and 404 voted. You must be a member for a certain period in advance of the conference to vote.] Late Saturday, people were coming in from California to vote for Terry - she was supported by a woman named Shelly Mandell of Los Angeles, who supported McCain-Palin publicly after Hillary lost the nomination. Shelly says she didn't support McCain-Palin as a NOW person - but the press thought otherwise.
Because this is the women's movement, we want to build a feminist culture. Not just win votes or elections or pass bills, but empower women - and men - to think and behave with equality and for justice.
Really! The people who won were nasty. I wish I had been in the plenary when the vaunted Patricia Ireland (Terry's treasurer) lashed out at Kim Gandy, questioning her budget figures - while supporters of the Terry team lined the back of the room, shouting at Kim to "tell the truth" - in reference to the budget situation. (I was working on credentialling so wasn't in the plenary.) Financially, NOW is in bad shape. So we have reason to be worried. But is this feminism? Perhaps this is a new version - attack-dog feminism. How does that distinguish us from every other political group? It doesn't.
The anger and bitterness of this crew - desperate to hang on to power, refusing to believe anyone else could run the organization - was shocking. (You've got to remember - these folks have a lot of history together - they're like Chicago politicos - byzantine alliances - cross them at your peril.) There were people I like and respect on Terry's side - people who felt she had the brains and experience to turn the membership decline around and that Latifa was just not ready for prime time. But they didn't sway many voters (although granted, Terry was only in the race about 3-4 weeks!) - all they did was win by eight votes. And what the hell were they doing in the past eight years to stop the hemorrhaging of members and money - or - as one Terry supporter said - the "death throes" that NOW is in? Come to think of it - what was the person who said "death throes" doing during the past eight years?
In addition to PI (as Ireland is known), another vaunted figure - Carol Moseley-Braun - embarrassed herself by storming down the aisle and interrupting Kim's "farewell" remarks. Apparently she thought she had been labelled as anti-Obama and pro-Sarah Palin and that was just too much for her. But did she have to interrupt the NOW president of eight years to make her irate and (as it turned out, incorrect) statement?
Ireland and Moseley-Braun both apologized on Saturday for their outbursts. Ireland admitted it was the wrong way to behave at a NOW conference - it would have been ok to be rude and disruptive, she said, at a congressional hearing on the ERA (maybe that's what's wrong with NOW - its obnoxious outbursts) but not at a NOW conference. Mosely-Braun said she had misunderstood what people were saying about her. Now she's a person who served in the Senate and was an ambassador - is she really that confused?
That wasn't all - there also was the sideshow of the Hillary Clinton supporters who remain permanently (apparently) pissed off about her loss. The so-called "PUMAS" - Party Unity My Ass. Clinton seems to have gotten over it - why haven't they. Some of these ladies are angry at NOW for not being supportive of Sarah Palin; apparently, the fact that she's a woman is sufficient qualification. A few blame Kim Gandy for EVERYTHING they don't like. I'd dismiss them as idiots except they are contributing to the anger within the women's movement and the splintering of the women's movement and they are very good at getting publicity.
It's too soon to tell whether younger feminists - those who were crying over Latifa's loss- will leave NOW and find another organization...or get over it... or take up the guitar, yoga, meditate, whatever. As for me, an "older feminist," probably the best thing I can do at the national level is be an active board member for the remainder of my term (over in Nov. 2010) and be watchful as to what the new officers do.
Will they keep their promises? Will they be transparent? Will they find something new to say and do? Will they lead?
Who cares? With only 404 voters in this "watershed" election to guide the women's movement, there doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm or interest in NOW, I fear.
As for our state chapter, I think Virginia NOW has a lot of promise and can do a lot of good work - members are supportive and caring and good people. So if anyone reading this wants a progressive, feminist "home," Virginia NOW is that.
Landing at National after 5 days at the NOW conference in Indianapolis, I decided to save a few dollars and took Metro home. Blue line to orange line, then a bus. Smooth and fast, while elsewhere on the red line, people were mangled and dying. So arbitrary - you're on one line, you live; another, you don't.
Anyone who thinks that because they've planned and worked and saved and been good citizens and good parents, they and the ones they love are safe - is in a dreamworld. Life doesn't make sense.
For example, all of those who thought the "dream team" of Latifa Lyles, etc., would win the NOW presidency and vice-presidencies...because we needed a youthful, fresh face for the aging, tired women's movement...were wrong. Eight votes - that's all it took for Latifa, a woman of color in her early thirties, to lose to Terry O'Neill, a mid-50s white woman. (Race does matter - a lot - in the women's movement.) Terry and her team may succeed in turning NOW around - I hope so - but I'm worried. There's nothing fresh there. Policy ideas are stale and positions are delivered in a rote, scripted fashion. The veterans on the ticket - Terry and the Illinois NOW prez - do not inspire me in terms of vision or practical skills or ability to deliver. The "new" faces on the ticket - two women in their late 20s, early 30s - have a lot to learn. A lot.
Eight votes. The red line.
A few people have asked me to write more about the NOW elections. Both teams - Latifa Lyles and Terry O'Neill - had strengths and weaknesses. But it's not about ideals or visions or even skills - it's about who can turn out the most voters. Total numbers of voters - 404 (really). [There were more people than that at the conference - but 407 were credentialed to vote and 404 voted. You must be a member for a certain period in advance of the conference to vote.] Late Saturday, people were coming in from California to vote for Terry - she was supported by a woman named Shelly Mandell of Los Angeles, who supported McCain-Palin publicly after Hillary lost the nomination. Shelly says she didn't support McCain-Palin as a NOW person - but the press thought otherwise.
Because this is the women's movement, we want to build a feminist culture. Not just win votes or elections or pass bills, but empower women - and men - to think and behave with equality and for justice.
Really! The people who won were nasty. I wish I had been in the plenary when the vaunted Patricia Ireland (Terry's treasurer) lashed out at Kim Gandy, questioning her budget figures - while supporters of the Terry team lined the back of the room, shouting at Kim to "tell the truth" - in reference to the budget situation. (I was working on credentialling so wasn't in the plenary.) Financially, NOW is in bad shape. So we have reason to be worried. But is this feminism? Perhaps this is a new version - attack-dog feminism. How does that distinguish us from every other political group? It doesn't.
The anger and bitterness of this crew - desperate to hang on to power, refusing to believe anyone else could run the organization - was shocking. (You've got to remember - these folks have a lot of history together - they're like Chicago politicos - byzantine alliances - cross them at your peril.) There were people I like and respect on Terry's side - people who felt she had the brains and experience to turn the membership decline around and that Latifa was just not ready for prime time. But they didn't sway many voters (although granted, Terry was only in the race about 3-4 weeks!) - all they did was win by eight votes. And what the hell were they doing in the past eight years to stop the hemorrhaging of members and money - or - as one Terry supporter said - the "death throes" that NOW is in? Come to think of it - what was the person who said "death throes" doing during the past eight years?
In addition to PI (as Ireland is known), another vaunted figure - Carol Moseley-Braun - embarrassed herself by storming down the aisle and interrupting Kim's "farewell" remarks. Apparently she thought she had been labelled as anti-Obama and pro-Sarah Palin and that was just too much for her. But did she have to interrupt the NOW president of eight years to make her irate and (as it turned out, incorrect) statement?
Ireland and Moseley-Braun both apologized on Saturday for their outbursts. Ireland admitted it was the wrong way to behave at a NOW conference - it would have been ok to be rude and disruptive, she said, at a congressional hearing on the ERA (maybe that's what's wrong with NOW - its obnoxious outbursts) but not at a NOW conference. Mosely-Braun said she had misunderstood what people were saying about her. Now she's a person who served in the Senate and was an ambassador - is she really that confused?
That wasn't all - there also was the sideshow of the Hillary Clinton supporters who remain permanently (apparently) pissed off about her loss. The so-called "PUMAS" - Party Unity My Ass. Clinton seems to have gotten over it - why haven't they. Some of these ladies are angry at NOW for not being supportive of Sarah Palin; apparently, the fact that she's a woman is sufficient qualification. A few blame Kim Gandy for EVERYTHING they don't like. I'd dismiss them as idiots except they are contributing to the anger within the women's movement and the splintering of the women's movement and they are very good at getting publicity.
It's too soon to tell whether younger feminists - those who were crying over Latifa's loss- will leave NOW and find another organization...or get over it... or take up the guitar, yoga, meditate, whatever. As for me, an "older feminist," probably the best thing I can do at the national level is be an active board member for the remainder of my term (over in Nov. 2010) and be watchful as to what the new officers do.
Will they keep their promises? Will they be transparent? Will they find something new to say and do? Will they lead?
Who cares? With only 404 voters in this "watershed" election to guide the women's movement, there doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm or interest in NOW, I fear.
As for our state chapter, I think Virginia NOW has a lot of promise and can do a lot of good work - members are supportive and caring and good people. So if anyone reading this wants a progressive, feminist "home," Virginia NOW is that.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
VA Women's Prison Segregated Lesbians
In March, I visited a women's prison- actually, a "pre-release center" - for Women's History Month, with a Virginia NOW colleague, at the invitation of a social worker there, who is a feminist. We spoke with a group of about 25 women who were about to be released - mainly women in jail on drug charges or for minor property crimes (theft, forgery). I don't think any were violent. My impression was most of the drug charges were for possession or use - although one woman was a "drug czar," who apparently ran a sizeable and lucrative business. Sad, sad business - a waste of lives and an indictment of our failure to deal with drug trafficking and to provide services to help women deal with issues and problems BEFORE they get in trouble. Apparently, recidivism is very high - so jailing troubled women sure isn't working. Let alone what it does to their children and families.
One of the saddest stories was a younger woman with a clearly masculine "style" - short, slick hair, rolled up tshirt sleeve, that stereotypical butch look - yet her speech was soft and her demeanor was kind and friendly. She told the same story as this AP article does - she was targeted because of her masculine appearance and segregated. I don't know enough about her - or any of the other inmates we spoke with - to say if she should have been segregated but it sure as hell isn't legitimate to isolate her because of her appearance.
I left the facility wanting to do something for these women. Maybe that's just liberal guilt - "there but for the grace of God go I." I don't know what that something should be. I do know the women I met by and large deserve better.
Va. women's prison segregated lesbians, others
By DENA POTTER, Associated Press Writer, Wed Jun 10, 7:05 pm ET
TROY, Va. – For more than a year, Virginia's largest women's prison rounded up inmates who had loose-fitting clothes, short hair or otherwise masculine looks, sending them to a unit officers derisively dubbed the "butch wing," prisoners and guards say.
Dozens were moved in an attempt to split up relationships and curb illegal sexual activity at the 1,200-inmate Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women, though some straight women were sent to the wing strictly because of their appearance, the inmates and corrections officers said.
Civil rights advocates called the moves unconstitutional punishment for "looking gay." The warden denied that any housing decisions were made based on looks or sexual orientation, and said doing so would be discriminatory. The practice was stopped recently after the Associated Press began questioning it, according to several inmates and one current employee.
Two current guards and one of their former co-workers said targeting masculine-looking inmates was a deliberate strategy by a building manager. Numerous inmates said in letters and interviews that they felt humiliated and stigmatized when guards took them to the separate wing — also referred to by prisoners and guards as the "little boys wing," "locker room wing" or "studs wing."
"I deserved to go for my crime and I did my time there," said Summer Triolo, who spent nearly six years at Fluvanna for theft before being released in February 2008. "But my punishment was by the judge to do time in prison away from my family and home. That was my punishment, not all the extra stuff."
Living conditions in wing 5D weren't worse than the rest of the prison, and no prisoner said she was denied services other inmates received. However, the women said they were verbally harassed by staff who would make remarks such as, "Here come the little boys," when they were escorted to eat, and they were taken to the cafeteria first or last to keep them away from other inmates. The three guards confirmed such remarks were made.
The two current guards and former guard William Drumheller said Building 5 manager Timothy Back, who is in charge of security and operations for that area, came up with the idea to break up couples by sending inmates to the wing. Gradually, they said, the 60-inmate wing was filled with women targeted because of their appearance. The current employees asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs.
"I heard him say, 'We're going to break up some of these relationships, start a boys wing, and we're going to take all these studs and put them together and see how they like looking at nothing but each other all day instead of their girlfriends,'" Drumheller said.
Drumheller said Back told him the plan one day in a prison office. The other two guards, who are both female, said Back's reasons for moving the prisoners were commonly known among guards, though officials would deny the reasons for the moves if inmates asked or complained.
Warden Barbara Wheeler called the policy a figment of the inmates' imaginations.
"With female offenders, relationships are very important, and often times when they're separated from those relationships they might perceive it as punitive," Wheeler said.
Wheeler said her employees wouldn't segregate inmates based on looks or sexual orientation, and she wouldn't condone it.
"That's like saying I want to put all the blacks in one unit and all the whites in one unit," something federal courts have ruled illegal, she said.
A dozen inmates interviewed in person or by letter contradicted Wheeler, saying there's no doubt why they were moved. Triolo said she had gone four years without getting in trouble until she shaved her shoulder-length brown locks. She soon was moved to 5D, away from her girlfriend.
Triolo and Trina O'Neal were two of the first inmates sent to 5D in the fall of 2007.
"I have been gay all my life and never have I once felt as degraded, humiliated or questioned my own sexuality, the way I look, etc., until all of this happened," O'Neal, 33, who is serving time for forgery and drug charges, wrote to the AP.
Drumheller worked at Fluvanna for two years but said he quit in August because he didn't like the inmates' treatment.
The prison declined repeated requests for an interview with Back, and the AP could not find a working home telephone number for him.
Sex — whether forced, coerced or consensual — is forbidden in prisons primarily to prevent violence and the spread of diseases.
Segregating gay inmates in men's prison has been upheld by federal courts to protect them and maintain order, though courts have ruled against total isolation or harsher conditions.
Separating women based on appearance, though, violates the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and freedom of expression, said Helen Trainor, director of the Virginia Institutionalized Persons Project.
"Point blank, this institution is ran by homophobes, and the rules instated here are based on your sexual preference not what is right or wrong," wrote inmate Casey Lynn Toney.
One of the saddest stories was a younger woman with a clearly masculine "style" - short, slick hair, rolled up tshirt sleeve, that stereotypical butch look - yet her speech was soft and her demeanor was kind and friendly. She told the same story as this AP article does - she was targeted because of her masculine appearance and segregated. I don't know enough about her - or any of the other inmates we spoke with - to say if she should have been segregated but it sure as hell isn't legitimate to isolate her because of her appearance.
I left the facility wanting to do something for these women. Maybe that's just liberal guilt - "there but for the grace of God go I." I don't know what that something should be. I do know the women I met by and large deserve better.
Va. women's prison segregated lesbians, others
By DENA POTTER, Associated Press Writer, Wed Jun 10, 7:05 pm ET
TROY, Va. – For more than a year, Virginia's largest women's prison rounded up inmates who had loose-fitting clothes, short hair or otherwise masculine looks, sending them to a unit officers derisively dubbed the "butch wing," prisoners and guards say.
Dozens were moved in an attempt to split up relationships and curb illegal sexual activity at the 1,200-inmate Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women, though some straight women were sent to the wing strictly because of their appearance, the inmates and corrections officers said.
Civil rights advocates called the moves unconstitutional punishment for "looking gay." The warden denied that any housing decisions were made based on looks or sexual orientation, and said doing so would be discriminatory. The practice was stopped recently after the Associated Press began questioning it, according to several inmates and one current employee.
Two current guards and one of their former co-workers said targeting masculine-looking inmates was a deliberate strategy by a building manager. Numerous inmates said in letters and interviews that they felt humiliated and stigmatized when guards took them to the separate wing — also referred to by prisoners and guards as the "little boys wing," "locker room wing" or "studs wing."
"I deserved to go for my crime and I did my time there," said Summer Triolo, who spent nearly six years at Fluvanna for theft before being released in February 2008. "But my punishment was by the judge to do time in prison away from my family and home. That was my punishment, not all the extra stuff."
Living conditions in wing 5D weren't worse than the rest of the prison, and no prisoner said she was denied services other inmates received. However, the women said they were verbally harassed by staff who would make remarks such as, "Here come the little boys," when they were escorted to eat, and they were taken to the cafeteria first or last to keep them away from other inmates. The three guards confirmed such remarks were made.
The two current guards and former guard William Drumheller said Building 5 manager Timothy Back, who is in charge of security and operations for that area, came up with the idea to break up couples by sending inmates to the wing. Gradually, they said, the 60-inmate wing was filled with women targeted because of their appearance. The current employees asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs.
"I heard him say, 'We're going to break up some of these relationships, start a boys wing, and we're going to take all these studs and put them together and see how they like looking at nothing but each other all day instead of their girlfriends,'" Drumheller said.
Drumheller said Back told him the plan one day in a prison office. The other two guards, who are both female, said Back's reasons for moving the prisoners were commonly known among guards, though officials would deny the reasons for the moves if inmates asked or complained.
Warden Barbara Wheeler called the policy a figment of the inmates' imaginations.
"With female offenders, relationships are very important, and often times when they're separated from those relationships they might perceive it as punitive," Wheeler said.
Wheeler said her employees wouldn't segregate inmates based on looks or sexual orientation, and she wouldn't condone it.
"That's like saying I want to put all the blacks in one unit and all the whites in one unit," something federal courts have ruled illegal, she said.
A dozen inmates interviewed in person or by letter contradicted Wheeler, saying there's no doubt why they were moved. Triolo said she had gone four years without getting in trouble until she shaved her shoulder-length brown locks. She soon was moved to 5D, away from her girlfriend.
Triolo and Trina O'Neal were two of the first inmates sent to 5D in the fall of 2007.
"I have been gay all my life and never have I once felt as degraded, humiliated or questioned my own sexuality, the way I look, etc., until all of this happened," O'Neal, 33, who is serving time for forgery and drug charges, wrote to the AP.
Drumheller worked at Fluvanna for two years but said he quit in August because he didn't like the inmates' treatment.
The prison declined repeated requests for an interview with Back, and the AP could not find a working home telephone number for him.
Sex — whether forced, coerced or consensual — is forbidden in prisons primarily to prevent violence and the spread of diseases.
Segregating gay inmates in men's prison has been upheld by federal courts to protect them and maintain order, though courts have ruled against total isolation or harsher conditions.
Separating women based on appearance, though, violates the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and freedom of expression, said Helen Trainor, director of the Virginia Institutionalized Persons Project.
"Point blank, this institution is ran by homophobes, and the rules instated here are based on your sexual preference not what is right or wrong," wrote inmate Casey Lynn Toney.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
You Never Know Where You'll Find Courage: Thoughts on Dr. George Tiller
I never met Dr. George Tiller but somehow I feel I know him. I know another doctor who provides late-term abortions and I think they must be very similar - tough, independent, don't like to be told what to do and what not to do. Plain spoken. Honest. You don't provide abortions for women in their 8th or 9th month of pregnancy unless you are very clear as to what is needed and why. Because your life is in danger- so you must be sure that what you are doing is very important.
After I learned yesterday that Dr. Tiller had been murdered, I talked to people who knew him and read articles and statements about him. One thing stood out -this man did a very difficult job because he knew it needed to be done and he had the guts to do it. He didn't wait around for someone else to do it. He didn't turn away. He didn't make excuses. He met a human need.
It helps to know the stories of women who have had these late-term procedures. Imagine - carrying a fetus that was dead. or dying, or so monstrously deformed that life would be short and agonizing. Then imagine you had no alternative but to wait for the contractions, or wait for the caesarean knife. Or wait for the baby to die. I don't know what I would do- maybe I would wait, because I always hope that the worst will not happen, even when there is no hope. But I would not wish that waiting on any other woman. Maybe male politicians can. I can't.
As I continued to think about Dr. Tiller's life, I began to feel he was like Dr. King. Dr. King knew he might not live to see his dream realized - but he carried on. I think Dr. Tiller must have had similar feelings - that he was a marked man but he would carry on. He didn't just provide abortions (actually, his practice provided other services as well and I'm told he helped couples to adopt). He had a vision - that children would be born loved and wanted and that women would have reproductive freedom. He died for the ideals of freedom and of human dignity. Most important, he lived for them. In that way, he was like Martin Luther King Jr. - a person of courage.
After I learned yesterday that Dr. Tiller had been murdered, I talked to people who knew him and read articles and statements about him. One thing stood out -this man did a very difficult job because he knew it needed to be done and he had the guts to do it. He didn't wait around for someone else to do it. He didn't turn away. He didn't make excuses. He met a human need.
It helps to know the stories of women who have had these late-term procedures. Imagine - carrying a fetus that was dead. or dying, or so monstrously deformed that life would be short and agonizing. Then imagine you had no alternative but to wait for the contractions, or wait for the caesarean knife. Or wait for the baby to die. I don't know what I would do- maybe I would wait, because I always hope that the worst will not happen, even when there is no hope. But I would not wish that waiting on any other woman. Maybe male politicians can. I can't.
As I continued to think about Dr. Tiller's life, I began to feel he was like Dr. King. Dr. King knew he might not live to see his dream realized - but he carried on. I think Dr. Tiller must have had similar feelings - that he was a marked man but he would carry on. He didn't just provide abortions (actually, his practice provided other services as well and I'm told he helped couples to adopt). He had a vision - that children would be born loved and wanted and that women would have reproductive freedom. He died for the ideals of freedom and of human dignity. Most important, he lived for them. In that way, he was like Martin Luther King Jr. - a person of courage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
