In Chapters 3 and 4 we have read shocking accounts of police brutality and other forms of state sanctioned violence against LGBTQ communities—particularly LGBTQ communities of color. The authors provide extensive evidence demonstrating the disproportionate effects of state violence on communities of color. Further illustrating this point they say, “Statistics pointing to the disproportionate use of force against people of color—including LGBT people of color—abound, and there is no shortage of illustrations bringing the numbers to life.” And according to the authors imposing this overt force of state sanctioned violence is accomplished by “framing particular individuals and groups as inherently dangerous, violent, mentally unstable, or disposable” (50). Even though communities of color are disproportionately affected by state sanctioned violence and homophobic traditions, they often tend to fall out of focus in the “mainstream” gay liberation movement.
After describing ways in which the state and social structures police LGBTQ communities and particularly affect communities of color, the authors express, “Much of the mainstream movement’s resistance to policing of queers has focused on these experiences of gay men, to the exclusion of those of other LGBT people and larger communities” (60). The authors also provide us with multiple examples of how popular resistance to the criminalization of gay communities has failed to account for intersectionality. If LGBT people of color and/or with other marginalized identities are most targeted by state and structural violence, then why do you think mainstream resistance movements have not worked to incorporate these voices? Who does this benefit? Please use examples from the court cases to support your answer.
Equality for all has been the principle that I believe is one of the greatest ironies throughout time. The criminal justice system is the ideal example. Supposedly, it charges people accordingly only to the extent of the crime. This is not necessarily true. What is evident throughout this book is how stereotypes have led to unfair accusations. One of the cases that stood out to me was Berina Mata: “The Homicidal Lesbian Man Hater.” It was June 26, 1998 when Mata a Latina woman who went out to a bar with John Draheim a white heterosexual man. When they both returned to Mata’s apartment, Mata had murdered Draheim. On first impression, it seems like Mata is entirely at fault. However, “According to Mata, Draheim tried to rape her at her apartment, causing her to experience flashbacks of the rape by her stepfather” (Mogul, 82). If the criminal justice system was truly just then the she should not be accused of self-defense. Instead she was charged with the death penalty. “According to death penalty scholar Victor Streib, women who receive death sentences are those who are easily dehumanized because they do not fit into heteronormative standards of womanhood: nurturing, passive, subservient, defenseless, and in need of protection” (Mogul, 83). In other words, stereotyping has limited society to the extreme, to the point where it is unjust. Either way Mata is tormented for life whether she killed Draheim or not, but she fought out of fear and for her own safety. Additionally, the stereotyping does not end there. People like Mata “are susceptible to being defined by criminalizing narratives painting them as aggressive, violent, sexually promiscuous, and lacking in mothering skills” (Mogul, 83). The real issue is they look at Mata in a different way. Prosecutors identify her as someone who fits the racial and sexist stereotypes, not as someone who defended herself as a rapist. The labeling of population demographics does marginalize many communities limiting them to either criminals or submissive under societal structure. In cases like this one, evidence is overlooked by societal expectations.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that there have been protests. In Queer Theory we can recall that some movements have not been successful because it did not represent all LGTB communities. Along with societal beliefs, one of the reason voices have been diluted is because the movements are not unified enough. For example, if standing up for only gay white communities, it does not speak on behalf of minority groups. If protests demonstrated a similar type of oppression that applies both to whites and minorities, then opinions could change. Policy makers could see that minorities are not alone in certain struggles and problems could be seen more universally.
So all in all, I think that society has expectations for particular people. Protests have not been successful though because movements are not applicable to a wider range of communities. How to promote immediate change I believe consists of standing up for all types of LGTB communities and demonstrating similar oppression.
“Good, we can do whatever we want to you.” These were words said to a Native American transgender woman before she was raped and left on the street; she was later denied of medical assistance. The farther a person exists from what’s the norm of gender/identity, the more silenced their pain and oppression seems to be.
ReplyDeleteThe oppression of nonconforming humans results in a leverage of power to anyone who falls within the parameters of the “norms” our culture reinforces through institutions and media. There are many reasons that there hasn’t been a collective effort to integrate everyone’s voice into society to create a more diverse and fair social structure; maybe some people enjoy having others to abuse to make up for their own self-doubt. The courts are able to make a quick and easy case out of anyone who can be squished into a confining, criminalized homoesexualized archetype.
Most of the cases mentioned aren’t only citizens of their communities abusing LGBTQ persons—as well as anyone who doesn’t prescribe to the norm—because they can get away with it, but law enforcement officers. Society needs a scapegoat; it makes them feel better to point out someone who is different than them to take the (sexual) shame off of themselves. It has to fall on someone, and it seems to gravitate towards those of color who are considered sexual deviants; if you fit into one archetype that is easily criminalized, walk lightly. If you’re in two, such as being a transgender Native American, or a homosexual Latina, as in the case of Mata, you are a walking target.
Quite a few of the court case examples were about individuals outside normative culture such as an African American lesbian, native transgender, a Cuban gay man. These cases illustrate the discrimination that the LGBTQ communities face in the judicial system, both as the defendant and the prosecuted. Mainstream resistance movements have not given publicity to these voices, because they are too far out on the fringe. The idea of “others” discriminating against marginalized groups seems to hold strong in areas of law. The archetypes that the “others” listed play a big part into the false identities applied to the individuals and disregarded actual evidence in the cases.
ReplyDeleteWomen, immigrants or people of color, and those outside the gender/sex binaries are still not given much voice in other parts of mainstream society. They are continually oppressed in areas of labor and education, not receiving the same access in patriarchal systems. Their needs are overlooked therefore their rights are often overlooked as well, as we saw in the chapters. When a dominant amount of women, be they sex workers, lesbian, or trans have been raped or assaulted by law enforcement this shows their value is menial in society (66).
This serves the structure of patriarchy, keeping the hierarchy in place so that a few of a dominant group may continue to write the norms, whether this is done unconsciously or not I am not certain. The systems and exposure has grown though the book Queer (In)Justice is published fairly recently, references to many instances of injustice and brutality based on race, sex, and class.
I think we can use the case of Wanda Jean Allen, the "Lethal Gender Bender," to better understand why LGBTQ POC are routinely excluded from conversations orbiting around the criminal legal system. During this case, the prosecution sought to demonize Allen as a killer because of her masculinized appearance, and this took up the majority of her demonizing. Kendall Thomas reminds us that the prosecution never explicitly conjured up Allen's race, but the imagery was "injected" into the conversation by utilizing racialized archetypes against her nonetheless: "She is a hunter when she kills ... She hunts her victims down and then she kills them" (85). Although the prosecutors never came out to say, "Allen did this because she is black" in the same way they made it clear they believed "Allen did this because she is gay," a racist argument of African masculinity, of hunting, of predatory ruthlessness, was still waged against her successfully.
ReplyDeleteI think this unconscious conjuring of racial tension can be seen throughout our society. In some places it is more explicit than others, but it is nearly always there. We are conditioned to structure our lives in terms of binaries, male/female, straight/gay, white/color. Any participation in the marginalized form is seen as a conscious deviation, a willingness to be a criminal, a turn that makes it easy for prosecutors to justify maltreatment on the basis that someone like Allen got what she deserved.
I think it's really gross! The truth is gross!
After finishing chapter 3 and 4 I was honestly shocked at the examples of police brutality and court case examples were equally as shocking. It was shocking to read that police are responsible for rapes, beatings, verbal attacks and humiliation. Before this chapter I honestly thought that police brutality was sweeping the nation and it was simply bad cops and racist, prejudice culture of cops, to put it simply I thought cops were the problem. After reading the court cases and doing some more research I now realize the problems are much more systemic and much more rooted in our society than simply bad cops. One of the stories that stuck out to me the most was when a female was raped by two police officers and when she called 911 the people responding laughed at what she was saying. This shows a very deeply ingrained problem in our society.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question I honestly do not know why the mainstream resistance movements tend to leave out the people most targeted by state and structural violence. Maybe because they fear it is too hard to incorporate more injustices when they have already been struggling with their own injustices, or maybe it is as simple as a lack of communication and education, or maybe there are deep-rooted racism in the mainstream movements. I am not sure how excluding certain groups could be beneficial to what some of the mainstream movements say they are about. The most logical reason for exclusion in my opinion would be because the movements are worried it would be too hard to attempt to solve other injustices when also trying to solve their own, which is not what acceptance is all about, and should not be what current resistance movements strive for.
When reflecting on how LGBT people of color and the other marginalized members of the LGBT community are targeted by the state and structural violence I believe this is a direct result of power in society and how we as human beings value members of our society. White individuals come from a higher status of power and privilege in society than minorities and men achieve higher stature than women in society.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding this, mainstream resistance movements are often headed by the individuals in power than the others who are further marginalized by the injustice. Although all LGBT members of society are marginalized or oppressed in some form, some individuals are marginalized more than others as a result of power and privilege as described above. That being said when individuals do benefit then, some benefit more than others because of how much more status they have in society. This is evident in a lot of the court cases that focused on LGBT members of color, lesbians, or transgender individuals who are further away from the societal norm than white gay males. This is evident in the case of Bernina Mata a lesbian Latina woman charged with capital murder of a white heterosexual male. She committed the crime with a white male named Russell Grandmeier who was granted, “immunity with respect to the murder and offer[ed] a four-year sentence for the concealment of Draheim’s death in exchange for his testimony against Mata” (81). Here it is easy to see how intersectional individuals are demonized in LGBT culture and oppressed by affluent society causing destruction and a lack of voice.
Sadly, the court system is ruled the same way as the government and as society. It seems that the norm is white heterosexual male. Because of this anyone who doesn't fall under this norm is ostracized. And even attacked and hurt. The book gave many examples in which gay men and women were attacked brutally and framed for crimes that they did not commit. The one the stuck the most with me was the Cuban man who was framed for a murder that he could not have committed because he was in prison during this time. Not only was he framed because he himself was gay but also because he has Cuban. it is terrifying and depressing that we still live in a society in which your race and sexuality play a role in the the respect that you receive.
ReplyDeleteI am unsure as to why these movements leave out the very people that are being attacked. In fact, it makes me sad that society does not strive to protect people that need protecting. However, I am unsure of where to begin in creating a change in the world or protecting the people who need protecting.