Thursday, September 18, 2008

Why Is It Always The White Women?

image I often engage in conversations with white women in which I accuse them of not owning their race privilege.  Quite often the response is, why are you blaming us, and not white males.  I believe that this is an important issue to discuss because despite the sisterhood claims of feminism, there actually exists a lot of animosity between WOC and white women.

White women and black men, both focus on the marginalizatio0n that they face from over privileged white men.  Though WOC will acknowledge that there is definitely an issue with how the  white male body is encoded with power; they are not our sole oppressors.  Unlike white women, white men do not have a history offering friendship that ends in betrayal.  The relationship between white men and WOC is quite clear...adversarial.  Telling us to focus on white men instead of deconstructing their own unearned privileges is an attempt to deflect responsibility.

Feminism has a history of betraying WOC.  As it has been noted on this blog and many others, when it came to activism, white women of middle/upper class standing have repeatedly made the movement about their needs and their desires, while at the same time trying to assert a common sisterhood with WOC.  When there is filing, coffee making and general menial tasks to be done, then and only then, do WOC matter in any significant way.  As we look at who are considered the heroes of second wave feminism the disparity between white women and WOC speaks volumes.  Despite the consciousness raising and the ideology of the personal is political, the personal is only validated when it is the experience of white women. White bodies, and white experiences have been utilized to  create the monolithic woman.

Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Janice Raymond, and Mary Daly could not possibly identify with the needs of WOC, and yet instead of seeking to learn they made their experiences the referential.  Bodies that did not conform to the feminist image were routinely silenced.  When bell hooks entered the scene saying that the gilded cage was a pretty trap for white women, but that it did not apply to WOC, then and only then, did we have a voice in modern feminism that spoke specifically to and for us.

What is most hurtful is that our common experiences of womanhood should allow for a form of solidarity, but as long as white feminists continue to devalue the degree to which race and class effect the lives of WOC there can be no lasting peace.  Race and class have been used as a tool to specifically oppress us.  When white women were attending consciousness raisings, getting degrees, and fighting in the courts for gender neutral legislation, it was  WOC  that you entrusted your children to.  Your achievements would not have been possible without our labour, and just like white men you discounted its value.

Even today feminists stand in defence of the clearly anti-woman Palin and yet there is virtual silence about the sexism that Michelle Obama faces.  Angelina Jolie is the embodiment of acceptable womanhood and Erykah Badu is a licentious whore.  Magazines daily reaffirm white womanhood as the most beautiful and desirable, and  WOC get one issue of Italian vogue.  That this privileging of beauty has left us permanently scared is not actively engaged in.

I talk to and about white women because I want an admission of the duplicitous nature of friendship that has been offered.  Until there is an acknowledgement of the history of betrayal, there can be no healing and no true sisterhood.  As women we cannot afford to continue to work at cross purposes if we hope to make any real inroads on our shared patriarchal oppression.  We will not allow you to achieve equality with white men by oppressing us.  Your freedom cannot be gained on our backs.  Mammy no longer wishes to serve.

 


36 comments:

Krista said...

I know I have privilege. I am not sure what to do about that information, though. I have had opportunity to speak out in embedded racist practice in my job as a social working, but right now I am just trying to survive. The privilege is there, even in my poverty. How can I use it to help advance social justice for WOC?

Anonymous said...

What do I have to do to show I understand my privilege? I know your post is directed at the majority of white women (and all white people), and I know it is not your job to make me comfortable reading your posts, but I can't help but feel attacked. I keep reading about how I have to accept my privilege, and I HAVE, so where is the discussion between white women who know what they have and the WOC who want us to accept it? That's not a rhetorical question.

Renee said...

@Krista your everyday actions on the job are helping women of color. No one demands that you become a martyr to the cause. Thanks for doing what you can, I assure you that it is more than most.

@Anon you should not feel attacked by my statements of truth. Not everyone is aware of their privileges the way that you are. Here I try to engage in the conversations that no one is having. I see this as a part of how I acknowledge my privileges. At any rate to give you a more complete answer of how I live my feminism I wrote this post.

Lindsay said...

We need to keep being reminded, and this post does a great job.

White Trash Academic said...

I have white privilege. I understood this at a very early age thanks to the treatment of my black girlfriends (I grew up in a racially mixed neighborhood) in church.

I now have a very different life. I come across more women in the Academy who are aware of this privilege. But, every now and again, I do run across someone who also feels "attacked" with discussions of racial privilege because as rad fems, they see gender over race (and class).

Because I still operate from a place of white privilege, I would rather let WOC speak for themselves, although I do my part to help.
Your posts are so insightful that the next time, I am just going to provide the link to your webpage :)

Anonymous said...

Renee:

I wonder if you might write a piece on the priviledge of being an American versus being from a third world country (especially any of the ones we have installed dictators in so as to gain access to their mineral wealth).

Perhaps you already have and you could point me toward it?

In any event, a rough summary of your thoughts would be welcome.

Chris Marshall

bluewolfcv said...

Renee,

My friends and family have already tagged me as the "unfun" one. I refuse to go to Hooters, I make my displeasure very well known regarding words like "ghetto" and "sambo", and challenge their assumptions (black/brown = poor = badly behaved and black/brown = affirmative action = they don't deserve it).

I don't know if these things even make a difference, and I feel like I just keep running myself into the wall. Do these things matter to you? Do you think they'd matter to other WOC? Or am I just running myself into the ground doing things that benefit no one?

cchiovitti said...

A bit off-topic and I apologize, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts, ideas, and suggestions for positive media for children. I have 3 girls and a boy and I get very tired of seeing crappy stereotypes portrayed in the design of their toys, books, and visual media. What types of these things to you recommend for children? What else should I, as a parent, be doing to re-enforce the ideals that I try to instill in them?

tiggrrl said...

As a WOC in the traditional feminist movement, I've seen a lot of marginalization of WOC and racist statements that were never acknowledged as such, even when they were called out. I've also seen some genuine work to address racism and privilege and a shift to bring WOC into leadership. I continue to have hope, but there's a long way to go, and every failure to acknowledge white privilege distances WOC even further.

WeblogLearner said...

There are lots of great people who are not white. I think it is just a matter of place. Here in Holland, every color is respected, white, yellow, brown or black. Everyone here has opportunities.

And what i say? Only stupids actually look at complexion of an individual.

professorwhatif said...

Great post -- much of this diviseness is still sadly very apparent at the campus where I teach.

I do think part of the problem though (and definitely this is only one part of a very complex problem) is the way feminism continues to devalue the TRUE diverse history of the movement -- while those you mention (Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Janice Raymond, and Mary Daly)get big play in "herstory," WOC are often absent from the feminist curriculum (much like women are absent from the mainstream curriculum). If we 'reclaimed' the true history of feminism and gave Ida B. Wells as much credit as Alice Paul, Wilma Mankiller as much as Carol Gilligan, Sojourner Truth as much as Mary Wollestonecraft, etc, it would help us not reveal that feminism was not a 'white woman only' movement, yet white women were (and still are) privileged in various ways -- even in how we study the history of the movement!!! Why do so many anthologies fill their pages with mainly white feminists with class privilege as well, rather than with, say Gloria Anzaldua, Paula Gunn Allen, Mitsuye Yamada, and RENEE??? And why, oh why, is the FABULOUS anthology This Bridge Called My Back out of print?



Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Janice Raymond, and Mary Daly could not possibly identify with the needs of WOC,

professorwhatif said...

So, being up since 5:30 this morning teaching has not a good writer made me!!! Sorry for the cut off comment at the end there and posting before spell-checking -- bad professor, bad! I am going to quit and get some shut eye.

Renee said...

@cchiovitti

My kids don't actually watch a ton of TV. My oldest is 7 and my youngest is almost 3. We have watched things like the Anne of green gables series. The boys love nature programs or anything that has to do with space, so discovery is a necessity in this house.
bell hooks and Toni Morrison have both authored excellent children books for bedtime stories. I don't necessarily believe in censoring my kids from the world because lets face it they are going to see it sooner or later. The 'unhusband' and I advocate critical viewership. We watch tv as a family and when we something that does not fit with our morals or standards we discuss it. We also believe in allowing the kids to ask any question that they want. No topic is ever off limits. I believe the most important aspect of parenting is critically engaging with children.
The first time my oldest said fagot, we immediately sat down and had a conversation about homosexuality and that there was no shame ever to found in loving another. All our conversations are age appropriate but they are designed to instill in the boys the idea that all people are worthy of respect.

Renee said...

@Chris...I have not specifically done a post dedicated to western privilege but I have touched on it in various posts. Try this or this or this. My position is that all western bodies exist with privilege in comparison to so called third world bodies. What we in west consider development has lead to the impoverishment and death of more than half of the worlds population and this not only morally wrong but unsustainable. If the globe were to continue to develop at this rate we would need ten planets.

Renee said...

@bluewolf

Yes everyday actions mean a lot and they matter not only to me but to other WOC. I know what it feels like to feel like you are hitting your head against a wall. Privilege is a hard thing to discuss and many people are quick to become defensive. You must also bear in mind how much people are socialized into certain beliefs that they view it as natural.
I constantly bicker with people about shopping at Walmart and hear I am too poor to shop anywhere else, but yet these same people are to "proud" to wear used clothing.
I also sever relationships wherein I can see that the person is clearly toxic. I do not need that kind of daily exposure and continuing a relationship is supporting that thought pattern. When you engage remember to think about intersections, ask questions and make them defend their point of view rather than you defend yours. Theirs is a strawman argument and can never stand up under close scrutiny.

Angel H. said...

WeblogLearner:

I am extremely curious as to your race. Usually, when someone says something akin to "In my country, everyone's colorblind and we hold hands and sing kumbaya" it's usually a white person without a clue.

Especially in light of what I've heard about Holland's treatment of Muslim immigrants.

PortlyDyke said...

"What do I have to do to show I understand my privilege? I know your post is directed at the majority of white women (and all white people), and I know it is not your job to make me comfortable reading your posts, but I can't help but feel attacked."

Well, one thing that I would suggest is that you strive to understand that considered criticism about institutionalized oppression -- especially from a member of the oppressed group -- is not an attack on you.

Only privilege could assume it to be so, imo -- I'm a white, lesbian woman. My oppression as a queer, and as a woman, does not negate my privilege as a white person. This means that my voice will be given added weight in the status quo -- and if I want to dismantle my white privilege, this means that I need to listen non-defensively when my brothers and sisters of color speak, help to make space for their voices (both in myself and in communities I work with) and use that "added weight" of my voice to back them up when they speak, which sometimes means telling myself and other people of privilege to just stfu for a bit.

Anonymous said...

Mary Daly and Janice Raymond never had children, never married men, and are radical lesbian feminists. So no black women ever took care of their non-existent children.
Gloria Steinem never had children either.

I don't have children so I never identify with any of the issues involving the care and feeding of children.

These women achieved greatness not because they relied on non-white caretakers, they achieved greatness because they didn't serve men in their own homes. In Raymond's and Daly's case they often were maligned for being non-inclusive of women of color.

Or they were accused of having privilege. Daly and Raymond come from working class families. Daly had to scrimp and be creative in a time when there were no student loans readily available in order to complete her advanced studies in Europe.

Radical lesbian feminists have never been treated well by any straight women's organizations. We are the radicals who tell women again and again that taking care of children and marrying men will not advance the cause of higher feminism.

I think there were a lot of accusations of Mary Daly's racism, but some of this stuff was proved false by black women academics doing research on their own.

Even Barbara Smith, a long time radical lesbian feminist black activist chided the black civil rights establishment for excluding her. So black women who were radical lesbian feminist were given the cold shoulder by straight black feminists, and on it goes.

Maybe someday we'll all figure it out, but I can tell you categorically that no mammy ever took care of my non-existent children. I took care of my own life thank you very much.

Renee said...

@ANON are you being purposefully obtuse? Seriously the point is that none of the feminists mentioned could relate to the issues of WOC, this goes beyond daycare issues. Not only could they not identify they did not seek to learn.

Anonymous said...

I believe Mary Daly was one of the early lesbian feminists who wrote extensively about women worldwide -- the abuse and torture of African, Chinese, European and American women.
She pulled together the connections between witch burning and genital mutilation, and in 1978, there was very little talk of genital mutilation anywhere. African women were offended that she even wrote about the mutilation of girls. They thought that paying attention to these attrocities was wrong. African women ironically didn't want white women writing about Africa at all.

So, no, Mary Daly did not ignore women of color, and she didn't ignore Asian women either. Janice Raymond wrote extensively about Chinese women, and in my personal conversations with her in 1994 she had a very broad knowledge of racism and sexism, and WOC issues. I personally talked to her. I personally talked to Mary Daly. I guess a lot of people on this blog haven't done this. Still time left, they are both alive and kicking.

Read a recently published biography of Audre Lord and you'll find Mary Daly exonerated in the big blowout she and Audre Lorde had I think in the early 80s. For years, people had accused Daly of NOT responding to Lord's open letter to her.

There is horrific racism and sexism worldwide. There is not much understanding about how racism and sexism intersect, but it has always seemed to me that no matter what, women often put men first. That is what galls me, or they often put straight women first, which has already made me a gall wasp :-)

PortlyDyke said...

In my view, as a white feminist, even if I put the power of my privilege to good use in fighting racism this does not take away the fact that I have that privilege.

Like Daly, I put myself through college, and grew up poor to lower-middle class (depending on the part of my childhood you look at) -- but if I attempt to deny that I had greater privilege while doing so, simply by virtue of my whiteness, I think that's simply denying my privilege. The truth is, even though I put myself through college -- it was easier for me to do so than my counterparts who were women of color in the same era -- because I was white. There were simply doors open to me, and opportunities available to me that would not have been available had I been a person of color.

"African women ironically didn't want white women writing about Africa at all.
"


I find it ironic that you are saying this to a Woman of Color because she is writing about white women. Do you find this ironic?

Anonymous said...

Mary Daly had to leave the U.S. to complete her education. She was not allowed as a woman to get a PhD in catholic theology at that time. Neither black women nor white women were even allowed in the front door for those degrees back in the early 60s.

Richard Wright and men of the black renaissance were not allowed a literary life to the degree that they got it in France in the 50s and early 60s.

But Richard Wright was a man and got a lot more literary aclaim and respect for his work.

Feminists tear down the work of pioneering radical feminists like Daly, and when they are in their 70s, male administrators fire them from tenued university positions.

No I don't think Daly had great advantages in America, and straight feminists to this day seem to have a great deal of trouble dealing with the comlex and uncompromising work of radical lesbian feminists. The black civil rights establishment had no use for lesbians either black or white. So I don't think people can corner the market on justice for women. It's much more complex than that.

PortlyDyke said...

"Mary Daly had to leave the U.S. to complete her education. She was not allowed as a woman to get a PhD in catholic theology at that time."

I understand this completely, and I do, in fact, honor my feminist foremothers (of all color, orientation, and level of radicalness) -- I just wrote a post about this in the past week.

However -- the fact remains that Daly's whiteness offered her privilege -- and still does. I'm guessing that for a black lesbian during the late 40s/early 50s, even traveling abroad itself would have been far more challenging than for a white lesbian.

I think that every woman on this planet is oppressed by patriarchy -- I deal with that oppression daily. I think every queer on this planet is oppressed by homophobia -- I deal with that oppression daily. However, every person of color in this culture deals with racism -- and deals with that oppression daily -- and that is an oppression that I don't deal with.

As to this: "So I don't think people can corner the market on justice for women."

Who are you claiming was doing that?

Anonymous said...

You only deal with racism if you are a racial minority. There are no countries on the face of the earth where women run everything, and so sexism is worldwide, racism is a synptom of minority status, and there are countries where the majorities are black or the majorities are white, or Asian etc.

Racism is specific, sexism and homophobia are universal. You can be black and subject to vicious rape in the Congo. You can be slaughtered in Rwanda, you can be tortured and genitally mutilated in Sudan.

Women are slaves in Sudan, and they have no civil rights in most parts of the Arab world.

When women have complete freedom then we'll see a change, but until then, well everyone will be served except women, and that's the main problem. It's why feminists and lesbian feminists are so reviled, because they dare to stand their ground and say womanhatred is the universal. Not hard to understand if you look at the rights of women as an international issue.

Don't know why this shouldn't be self-evident, but then again, everyone else's rights EXCEPT women's are primary always.

Renee said...

@anon
Racism is specific, sexism and homophobia are universal. You can be black and subject to vicious rape in the Congo. You can be slaughtered in Rwanda, you can be tortured and genitally mutilated in Sudan.

Even in populations where blacks are a majority they are still subject to racism...explain Rwanda outside of lens of racism/tribalism/colonialism. Furthermore racism plays a large role in how western governments deal with third world countries thus impacting these citizens on a daily basis. The idea that you can privilege one "ism" over another is completely wrong.

Anonymous said...

No I don't believe in "privileging" one thing over another, I just know at the heart of it all, men rule and women serve. Everything else is simply and excuse or the icing on a patriarchal cake.

Men created all these systems, and women don't run or control any of them anywhere. If we can't even get to the bottom of this, we'll be stuck in the endless loop of women being second and men always calling the shots.

What's so hard about this? Kind of scary how even lesbians can miss this point today, but hey, colonialism is at fault or tribalism... but who runs the colonies and who runs the tribes and who names the countries? Who rules men or women?

Anonymous said...

P.S. Perhaps women of color have too much invested in defending men, rather than overthrowing male supremacy. I've always wondered how this particular blind spot can be so all pervasive, but then the truth that men everywhere -- black or white are truly the people who rule the world.

If you have to say this, it's painful, because the temptation is to blame all white people for everything. And white people should be blamed when appropiate, just as men worldwide should be held accountable. Just ask the women in the Congo -- the massive rapes that gangs of male soldiers put their own people through. I believe it is one of the greatest attrocities against women as a group anywhere in the world today, and not one white person was involved in this. This outrage wasn't even covered in the mainstream press for a long time. Didn't hear black men in America shouting about it either...hmmm.

Angel H. said...

~~~No I don't believe in "privileging" one thing over another, I just know at the heart of it all, men rule and women serve.~~~

That IS privileging one thing over the other. Especially since you fail to recognize the many matriarchal non-white societies.

~~~P.S. Perhaps women of color have too much invested in defending men, rather than overthrowing male supremacy. I've always wondered how this particular blind spot can be so all pervasive, but then the truth that men everywhere -- black or white are truly the people who rule the world.~~~

Wow.

Just shut the fuck up. Really. As Tim Wise says, "your whiteness is showing."

~~~If you have to say this, it's painful, because the temptation is to blame all white people for everything. And white people should be blamed when appropiate...~~~

And I suppose YOU are going to tell US when it is and isn't appropriate? I is sooo sorry! I promiz to behave!

What-the-fuck-ever.

~~~This outrage wasn't even covered in the mainstream press for a long time. Didn't hear black men in America shouting about it either...hmmm. ~~~

I honestly believe that it would take less than 5 fingers to count how many black men you've held a conversation with in the last 10 years.

I can't even see you, yet your whiteness is blinding me.

consciousness razor said...

Renee, thanks for this, and all your posts. I don't even feel like I can comment yet, but reading your posts in the last few weeks has given me so much to think about. Expect a post about this topic in my blog in the near future. :)

Much love,
CR

Lisa Harney said...

How did I miss this, and why are the radfems-who-like-to-say-bigoted-things all posting anonymously lately? It's almost like they can't handle the light.

Is intersectionality really that hard? I mean, understanding that women of color have to deal with both racism and sexism at the same time, and that it is legitimately necessary to deal with both of these and not ignore one in favor of the other? That it is not asserting a hierarchy of oppressions to say this? That it is asserting a hierarchy of oppressions to say something like

No I don't believe in "privileging" one thing over another, I just know at the heart of it all, men rule and women serve. Everything else is simply and excuse or the icing on a patriarchal cake.

Perhaps women of color have too much invested in defending men, rather than overthrowing male supremacy.

And what you're saying about the Congo? Are you claiming that white people have no responsibility for what's happened there? Are you aware of the Congo's colonial history? How about the effect western corporate interests have there now? How about the way the US uses foreign policy to influence reproductive freedom in many parts of the world?

You can point to the rape and the violence and you can say "Black men are doing this to black women" and this is 100% true, but you are eliding the responsibility that white Europeans and Americans have for influencing and controlling the historical forces that have led to this point. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Anonymous said...

Historic forces are "making" black men rape black women in the Congo? Some colonial white man in a pith helmet is "forcing" these men at gun point to go out and destroy the souls of black women in the Congo? Hmmm.

Let's see, Signapour was once a colony, even Vietnam was once a French colony, and I believe the white colonials left many of the African nations, how many years ago?

Black men raping black women-- 100% true. I don't see black women destroying black men in the Congo. So bottom line, we have men destroying women worldwide. So yes, I think male supremacy is the original colonizing idea, and if you think that's bunk... Go interview the women who were raped by gangs of soldiers, who also tortured the women, made their children watch the crimes. I think we have got to blame the criminals, and get rid of these ridiculous example of colonialism being the problem for everything.

All of these countries have had independence long enough to produce their own home grown dictators.

Or as one African professor once said to me long ago, when I criticized Ida Amin for his attrocities. "He's a black bastard, but at least he's our bastard." Wow. Scary.

Renee said...

@anon
I think we have got to blame the criminals, and get rid of these ridiculous example of colonialism being the problem for everything.

In this you could not be more wrong. Africa has its independence in name only. Western nations are still actively raping the continent and colonialsim is not a thing of the past. What we have now is a neo-colonialism wherein western hegemony is exists through economic dominance. Consider the unfair trade treaties, the debt which has been repaid several times, currency devaluation, the IMF, the WB, SWAPS etc All of the aforementioned constitute a neo-colonialsim which allows western nations to control the global south without an occupying force.
When western war manufacturers impoverish a people and then fuel local war by supplying munitions they are directly responsible for the atrocities that are occurring.

Lisa Harney said...

Historic forces are "making" black men rape black women in the Congo? Some colonial white man in a pith helmet is "forcing" these men at gun point to go out and destroy the souls of black women in the Congo? Hmmm.

That's a vastly liberal interpretation of what I said. It's also a convenient interpretation that absolves colonial Europe and neo-colonial governmental and economic policies, and corporations from their role in creating and sustaining a climate in which these things occur.

No one is forcing black men to rape black women in any African nation. What they are doing is sustaining the unstable political and economic situation which enables this violence.

It's outrageous to even begin to attempt to discuss the situation you're trying to talk about without also understanding the historical, economic, and political forces that are at play and have been at play for centuries. You can't just take it down to individual acts of violence and condemn those, unless you're either ignorant or unwilling to acknowledge these influences. And if you refuse to acknowledge these influences, you're not talking about anything happening in the Congo.

You can't point to other nations in different situations as evidence that what's happening in the Congo is not evidence of colonialism or neocolonialism. Not every nation is in the same situation, or subjected to identical forces.

justicewalks said...

This anonymous person speaks so vulgarly of what black men do to black women in Congo and Sudan, yet doesn't say anything at all about the fact that these women's ability to *leave* the situation she describes is hobbled by a world ruled by white men. How many of these horribly abused black women could get asylum in countries further up the economic spectrum? Speaking for the US, I can guarantee you the *white* men here won't be welcoming (m)any with open arms. And I know the reason why.

But I don't suspect that's what this anonymous person meant when she suggested male supremacy plays a more important role in a woman's life than racism. No, I don't think Anonymous meant that the simple sexism between a similarly situated woman and man is *compounded* in the lives of black women by the racism of *white* men and the sexism of *white* women, who don't give a good god damn about the *black women* on the bottom of that spectrum. White women never want to talk about how black women are affected by white men's sexism, too, individually and on an institutional scale. If we aren't talking about white men's individual and institutional sexism against black women, which special sexism actually privileges white women over black women - still part of the sex class, of course - but considered smarter, more beautiful, more tasteful, classier, deserving of a pedestal rather than a gutter, if we aren't talking about that, we aren't talking about black women's *whole* experience of sexism. If we aren't talking about the fact that if any other women on the planet were being hunted down and brutalized on that kind of scale, *someone* would be helping them - militarily, legally, with refuge - then we aren't talking about the realities of the global, racialized sexism against black women.

But if we talked about that, I suppose we'd then have to talk about the way - call me a conspiracy theorist - certain, usually darker-skinned, women are left to suffer unspeakable atrocity on an even grander scale and to an even greater degree than what happens on our own shores, so that they might be a lesson to the relatively compliant women here about the depraved potential of men. They serve *white* men a purpose in being violated the way that they are; their widespread rape, their infibulation, their purdah, their sadistic torture - all serve to make white men look more humane simply because white men possess the resources to make their own females complicit in misogyny, against themselves and other women, rather than merely oppressed by it.

Anonymous said...

buy ativan buy lorazepam online no prescription - ativan maximum daily dosage

Anonymous said...

buy xanax xanax pills 1mg - easy buy xanax mexico