Trim bitches. Grow hos. Potstitutes. If you know what those terms mean, you know that our county’s most prominent industry has what politicians call “a woman problem.” But it’s probably not the problem you think.
There’s something that raises our collective hackles about a woman gaining the favor of a rich man by dint of her beauty and youth. Gold diggers, we call them: scorned bearers of an unearned status, threats to the basic building block of social harmony that is marriage, debasers of true affection. Matrimony, after all, is a calling. Prostitution is a profession. The gold digger is one of our cherished societal tropes, and it’s little wonder Humboldt County is awash with lurid stories of women in leather boots and tight jeans who prowl the hills during the fall, searching for weed-rich sugar daddies.
When we talk about weed and women we don’t talk about the single mothers who trim during the fall so they can buy school clothes for their kids. We don’t talk about the pioneers — grandmothers now — who moved here in the ’70s and scratched a living out of the hillside, praying that the sun would shine and CAMP helicopters wouldn’t darken the skies above their homesteads. We don’t talk about the fact that grow culture — for all of its inherent problems — celebrates egalitarian domestic partnerships where couples share the responsibilities of maintaining both a home and a family business. We don’t mention that growing weed is one of the few careers that offer parents the economic choice of staying home to raise their children. We don’t talk about the women who are proficient in permaculture, homeopathy and botany, or the women who work their asses off to run scenes of their own so they can send their kids to college. No, we talk about potstitutes, grow hos and trim bitches.
Bitches. Really, bitches? Bitches are not humans: They’re holes. Bitches are interchangeable. Bitches do not deserve consideration. Bitches can be bought and sold.
And that is the crux of our actual woman problem. The majority of women in this underground industry are the mothers, grandmothers, farmers and college students mentioned above. And a smaller but not inconsiderable number are being pimped, exploited, enslaved and raped. Reducing the role of women in weed to a slur — trim bitches — is really an elaborate system of victim blaming that benefits no one except predators and pathetic stand-up comedians who can’t write a set without one hand in their pants.
Because these issues often go unreported and unaddressed, it is impossible to get accurate numbers, but the exploitation of women in weed is so endemic that District Attorney Maggie Fleming made it a cornerstone of her election campaign. Resources appear to be in even shorter supply than sympathy. That, combined with the insular nature of grow culture and the remoteness of many scenes, makes helping victims a challenge.
“We’re not going to be able to go out and pick somebody up,” says Maryann Hayes Mariani, client services coordinator for the Humboldt Rape Crisis Center. “It wouldn’t be safe for them or for us. So when they call we often problem solve with them, and coach them on what to do if they can get to a more populated area.”
Seasonal workers are also uniquely vulnerable to financial exploitation. It’s not uncommon to hear stories of a summer’s worth of work gone unpaid, with no legal recourse for the victim. If our instinct upon hearing these stories is to scoff and say that it was a risk they knew they were taking, do we hold the same standards for victims of sexual exploitation? Mariani says many of her clients feel as though they have nowhere to turn — and no social support. While some victims are seasonal workers who ended up in a bad scene, others are children of grow culture, who were indoctrinated into its code of silence from a young age. It’s all well and good to say that a victim of rape, incest or assault should turn his or her assailant in to law enforcement, but what about when the assailant is a family or community member upon whom the victim might be financially reliant, in a culture that functions due to the unspoken agreement that nobody narcs, ever? What then?
“Even after they get them to safety, the terror stays with them for quite a while,” Mariani says, adding that victims often live in anticipation of being found and brought back to the scene they escaped. “They might go back because they can’t deal with the waiting and the fear. We don’t judge. We have to respect their choice.”
Human nature dictates that we devote our attention to the visible and convenient, the small handful of anecdotes that reinforce what we already believe about the world. Young men in big trucks, young women in tight jeans. It’s a story as old as commerce itself. Victims are often invisible and definitely inconvenient. More often than not, we mistake their silence for consent.
But the hour is growing too late to do that. Legalization is just around the corner. What that really means for our economy and for our culture is a matter of great debate, but one thing is for certain: When the money and the silence and the fear are finally drained from grow culture, a lot of ugly things are going to get dragged out into the sunshine. In time they’ll be sanitized and repackaged and sold as quaint reminders of a wilder time. And make no mistake: This wild time, this time of bootstrap entrepreneurs, modern-day homesteaders, young women in big trucks, young men staying home to raise their children, this time of heady economic optimism, is an extraordinary time to experience. We should be grateful we get to live through it. But none of that matters if we’re allowing the mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters and workers that comprise our beloved community to be reduced to a slur. None of that matters if we’re complicit in the exploitation of the powerless. We say trim bitches, history will say women. We say trimmigrants, history will say migrant workers. We say nothing, and history will say we picked the wrong side.
Linda Stansberry is a freelance journalist from Honeydew.
This article appears in Catch and Release.

You need to cite your sources!!!!! I wrote almost this exact piece and have forwrded it to the journal a while back! Linda stansburry and the journal you are exploiting others work as your own and you need to stop!
ps. my article was also published in womens norml, women grow, and Ladybud magazine. Furthermore Linda Stansbury wrote an article last year about why she would never date a grower. So now her experiances have changed so quicky and she becomes the experton women and weed….oh and her new writing style is exactlry like mine. Be ready for lawers Linda Stansbury!
This “article” reads like a pitch to an editor giving a taste of what the actual article will be about; Puppie R., are you sure you want to take credit for whatever this is?
Oh yes sir I do that is exactly what I am saying it is a summary of a much larger article. My full article doesn’t leave out all of the history research and is an actual account of people true endeavors. Feel free to read my full article in ladybud magazine. The column is titled the underground and the sub title of my article it….. You guessed it “women and weed”
As the Journal’s news editor, I have thoroughly researched “Puppie Rainbow’s” accusation — and a similar one posted to the Journal’s Facebook page — that Linda Stansberry plagiarized portions of her work. I’ve found this accusation to be completely without merit. Other than touching on the same general subject matter, there is simply no similarity in structure, style or content between Stansberry’s column and the three-part series Brandie Wilson wrote for Ladybud.com. I invite our readers to compare the works side by side and come to their own conclusions (links provided below). Further, I feel the need to point out that though Stansberry‘s column didn’t appear in print until the Jan. 8 edition of the Journal, she submitted her first draft of the piece on Nov. 12, 2014 — before the first installment of Wilson’s series was published. I have also scoured my email and asked around the office but have found no evidence that Ms. Wilson submitted her work to the Journal at any point in the last year.
We at the Journal take accusations of plagiarism in our pages seriously, as they cut to our core values as a newspaper. That said, I feel 100 percent confident standing behind Linda Stansberry’s work. But, please, feel free to judge for yourself.
http://www.ladybud.com/2014/11/13/the-unde…
http://www.ladybud.com/2014/11/24/the-unde…
http://www.ladybud.com/2014/12/11/the-unde…
Whatever that is not the whole truth nor is that all of the articles I directed you too. The first article regarding this was published in August. Per our phone conversation It’s obvious no resolve will be found with you. My writing and publishing started in August and at the very least you should awknoledge that this is a conversation that has been going on for quite sometime and her discussion of this issue has been informed by researching the subject and if she researched te subject how did no one else’s work get read? Should no one be cited, if you use other people ideas you need to credit them or you are copying their work. This is not just my work tht was published back in august but it was many other peoples work as well. My part of this discussion is over in the online forum. I have asked you to stop or at least cite your damn sources and you won’t. Again this began bein published in August. Oh and as to having thought I sent it to you I checked….I was wrong it was the actual paper times standard. That still does not change the point that other people work was used to create the basis for this article In Your zine.
My only genuine stereotype against women is that sometimes the well-off ones in media find miniscule things to make victim pie from. The assumption that you poor helpless bitches can’t get by without big strong journalism lady and her worldly power is, in effect, more sexist than a slur.
In all truth this article says “the mostly white demographic that opts out of any kind of real work in LA, a place 75% of Cali envies in terms of the job market, to clip pot tax-free on a hill, these people need more respect than others.” Comparing trimming to SLAVERY is no bueno. Oh, and the cartels aren’t “just trying to feed families due to poor economic conditions and institutionalized racism,” so why we gotta bow to the new school of Pumpkin Spice Victimhood just because the “victims” here are women?
Also, check your priv, toots. What about black men and women who “have to” trim and sell to NYC to support their kids, etc? How does Humboldt privilege affect those transporting through Omaha? To pay for a cancer sugery or whatever guilt-trip I use to make illegal drug sales appear to be something that deserves union protection and health care, at $50/hr untaxed?
Oh, and fyi, I’m a comic who has performed *at* all-female trim scenes, and my joke about Rastatutes who compare trimming to the slave trade got a laugh. Sadly though, at the time, the premise was not an in-print reality. Thanks for comparing nug buckets to whips and shackles. All Humboldt needs is another white bitch (defn: angry human of any gender) co-opting what black people have left of their history.
You guys are bickering like a bunch of trim bitches cherry picking the OG Kush while the smaller Blue Dream totes go untouched…It’s all gotta get trimmed.
As far as I can tell, Linda Stansbury is the only person reducing women in the weed industry to trim bitches & potstitutes. Just because the derogatory nickname exists, does not necessarily that everyone’s thoughts or actions with regards to women revolve around those terms. And really… Slavery? Where is this articles focus? Are potstitutes being enslaved and pimped out now? Or is it the trim bitches? Wtf??
Ms. Wilson-
I did not link to your piece published in August because you wrote it under a pen name, and I didn’t feel it appropriate to out you as the author. If you’re willing to put your name to that piece, please post the link for our readers to help them judge the validity of your claims for themselves. Personally, like your three-part series, I don’t see any resemblance between your August article and Linda Stansberry’s piece, other than the general subject matter.
You have very publicly made an accusation against this paper and one of its columnists. I have thoroughly researched it and don’t see anything indicating it to be true. I’ve tried to discuss this matter with you, and asked you repeatedly to point me to any evidence of your claims — any passage or passages from Stansberry’s piece that closely match or seem distilled from specific pieces of your work. You have been unable to do that. Instead, you’ve opted to continue posting baseless accusations under a pseudonym.
Thank you for at least admitting that you never submitted any work to the Journal, absolving us of your previously implied accusation that we’d somehow stolen work you’d submitted. Accountability, after all, is one of the basic tenets of journalism.
Sincerely,
Thadeus Greenson
Thank you for your concern. I have done nothing wrong and I stand by my work. In response to the debate around this piece, I’ve decided to create a standardized response, which you can find below.
https://medium.com/@lindastansberry/stansb…
This thread is surreal!
And by the way, I wrote this piece last June!
This piece appears to have scratched some thin skin. Well done.
It’s a Dramatic eye catcher, lots vile words that I never heard anyone called.
I agree the kids get ripped off when they don’t get paid for working so hard! Not all are female either, the drug addicts are creating havoc everywhere. Meth, pills, heroin!! The kids get the worst influences.
Legalizing isn’t making growing better for most of the growers, it’s a political stunt the way the laws are set up. Make it legal as growing apples. No rules… then it will be fun.
The author needs to get laid.
Moronic, sexist remark from “Captain Obvious.”
Perhaps he’s one of the subjects of Ms. Stansberry’s piece.
This was a good article. I read the ones by “Puppie Rainbow” (for real?) and can’t see what she’s tripping on. First off just because this article is on a similar topic don’t mean she is copying. Also those other articles are so badly written it’s painful. I only took high school English and I know the rules about the passive voice and subject agreement. Also the Journal piece is more complex even though it’s shorter. I work in the industry and see a lot of the problems. I always make it a safe place for women to work (and men) but I hear about a lot of that stuff. Exploitation. Rip offs. Even ladies who have to trim topless. All that is wrong. I hope that this piece will help raise awareness and make this a safer economy for women.
Damn. Mean people suck.
Well said. Keep up the good work.
I’m not sure why the article says no one talks about the good aspects that women have participated in within this industry. In my experience in the last 18 years, I have heard more positive conversations about women working mj.
In addition, I’ve never heard the term trim bitches. Cherry pickers can be male or female. Gro hos are just gold diggers, which have existed long before the mj industry.
Wow. Powerfully well said!