Sergeant Phelps worked for General Eisenhower. Four decades after Eisenhower had defeated the Axis powers, Phelps recalled an extraordinary event. One day, the general told her, “I’m giving you an order to ferret those lesbians out. We’re going to get rid of them.”
“I looked at him and then I looked at his secretary who was standing next to me, and I said, ‘Well, sir, if the general pleases, sir, I’ll be happy to do this investigation for you. But you have to know that the first name on the list will be mine.’ “
“And he was kind of taken aback a bit. And then this women standing next to me said, ‘Sir, if the General pleases, you must be aware that Sergeant Phelp’s name may be second, but mine will be first.”
“Then I looked at him, and said, ‘Sir, you’re right. They’re lesbians in the WAC battalion. And if the general is prepared to replace all the file clerks, all the section commanders, all the drivers-every woman in the WAC detachment-and there were about nine hundred and eighty something of us-then I’ll be happy to make that list. But I think the general should be aware that among those women are the most highly decorated women in the war. There have been no cases of illegal pregnancy. There have been no cases of AWOL. There have been no cases of misconduct. And as a matter of fact, every six months since we’ve been here, the general has awarded us a commendation for meritorious conduct.”
“And he said, ‘Forget the order.’” —
The Gay Metropolis, page 47, Charles Kaiser (via bibliothekara)
Phelps tells this story herself in the excellent 1984 documentary Before Stonewall, which you can watch in its entirety on YouTube (she’s at 19:30, but really, watch the whole thing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX7AxQd82H8
Why the fuck are the people on my dash saying it’s okay to bash a woman’s appearance just because she has shit politics?
You know what you do when a woman has shit politics? YOU BASH HER FUCKING POLITICS AND LEAVE HER FACE AND BODY OUT OF THE DISCUSSION ENTIRELY. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU.
The study found that people hesitated longer to shoot an armed white target (and they were more likely to accidentally not shoot). Participants were quicker and more accurate with black armed targets but there were more “false alarms” (shooting them when they were unarmed). These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views and wanted to treat all targets fairly
“These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views and wanted to treat all targets fairly”
You’ve got to be kidding me. That’s total bullshit. If you’re going to shoot an unarmed black person and then claim to not have discriminatory views …What a crock of shit.
got that a little bass ackwards there, I think…first the subject claimed no (explicit) racial biases, and THEN they took the test which proved that, yes, they *did* have (implicit) racial bias
TBH though, focusing on that part of the study is, for me anyway, nearly beside the point —it’s like burying the lede: A Black man holding a wallet is more likely to be shot by the police
than a White man holding a gun. That sentence is troubling enough without reading beyond the word ‘police’
Like I almost don’t give af about the whys, that experiment is proof enough that racial bias causes unjustified shootings (as if anyone seriously needs more convincing) and I just want it all to stop before more Black people like me are shot for no other reason than the color of our skin
but…if we gotta examine that last sentence, there’s nothing problematic with it, unless you’re interpreting it to say that the participants (or the authors meant that the participants) were not racist
It didn’t say that, and that’s kinda the whole point of the study: will your (white people) actions really match up to your claims?
…like why even bother running this experiment on people who ALREADY freely admit to being virulent racists? What would that even prove?
breaking it down:
A) “These effects were present even though participants did not hold any explicit discriminatory views”
translation: test subjects *thought* they aren’t racist because they don’t use the n-word or voted for PBO or some ish like that —a lot of racists actually believe those two things alone eternally exempts them from being a racist
B) “…and wanted to treat all targets fairly” again, what the participants said, allegedly thought, or claimed they “wanted” doesn’t really count after they took a test which blatantly exposed that their actions proved every bit as racist as the actions of…well, a racist
the “Read More” link (in the original post above) and it’s article about Kofi Adu-Brempong goes into it a little more and isn’t giving any white person a pass for being “not racist” it just shows that implicit racial bias can manifest in the same way—and is frequently just as deadly—as explicit racial bias