College students around the U.S. and Canada have been seeing “White Student Union” pages pop up for their respective schools–as of this morning there were more than 30 around the country. But is this a new trend–are random college students really trying to create “white student communities,” or just a bunch of annoying trolls?

I’m happy to announce it appears to be the latter–The Daily Beast has reported that the Facebook pages for the white student unions are being created by a bunch of racist trolls.

Those white-student-union Facebook pages are probably fake: https://t.co/O6npzWSFQG pic.twitter.com/dpXm0FRx2x

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) November 24, 2015

The message boards 4Chan and 8Chan as well as the white supremacist site Daily Stormer appear to be propelling the creation of the pages. Gotta love the internet, and its amazing power to connect assholes regardless of location.

According to The Daily Beast, the goals of these idiots are pretty straightforward:

These trolls’ strategy is to mimic the black student activist groups whose campus protests have made headlines this month. They purport to highlight racial double-standards, asking why white students should not be allowed to organize the way minority students do. The answer is relatively straightforward (American universities are often majority white, with curricula and administrative systems that privilege white students), but 8channers are counting on some students to fall for their rhetoric.

The pages have all essentially been created within the last week, lending credence to the theory that there’s a concentrated and new effort to create them. Additionally, many of the pages use similar language, for example introducing the pages as “a safe space to support and promote the interests of students of European descent at [relevant university name]!” The following description has also been found on a number of pages:

We affirm the dignity and ancestry of our proud people who have gifted the world with countless works of beauty, science, and wisdom, and are committed to promoting a dialogue and political resistance that will secure a future for our posterity and spirit. … At the same time, we do not wish to denigrate or harm any other group or ethnicity.

After their creation, the pages have been posting a variety of articles, including those about high profile racial controversies at schools like Mizzou and Yale, or articles that are critical of the Black Lives Matter movement and the concept of white privilege.

Schools that have been affected have, for the most part, issued statements that they’re trying to get the pages taken down, and that they’re not supported by the administration. Many schools have also indicated their support for students of color on their campuses. Additionally, NYU–one of the highest profile schools to get targeted–threatened legal action against the trolls for using NYU’s logo without permission and breaking copyright law.

So no, there’s not suddenly a ton of students across the country making “White Student Union” pages, or trying to start “White Student Union” organizations. But thanks, trolls, for making sure my faith in humanity is, as per usual, very low.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Up With All the “White Student Unions?” appeared first on Law Street.

As a liberal, opinionated, and feminist woman, living in the conservative South can sometimes be interesting. Just the other day I was having coffee with a new acquaintance and the subject of feminism came up. She asked me: “How can you be a feminist if you’re married?”

Surprisingly–or maybe it’s not so surprising–she is not the only person who thinks calling yourself “feminist” comes with restrictions; that it means if you’re married to a man you couldn’t possibly be a feminist because feminists hate men.

Along with the upsurge of men and women claiming the title “feminist” there has also been an increase of women and men speaking out against what they think feminism stands for. Take for instance this Tumblr account dedicated to women who think they don’t need feminism. Add that to the female celebrities who denounce feminism without really knowing what it means, and the misogynists on sites like 4chan and 9gag who think embarrassing feminists will stop them, and we have a real problem.

Now, it is not necessarily their fault that they aren’t aware of what feminism truly is. We have been brought up in a society where feminism has a negative connotation. The first thing that pops into most people’s heads when they think of “the F word” is man-hating women setting fire to their bras. That picture is then projected onto all feminists, and they are made out to be women who hate men and who want to oppress them.

This skewed view of feminism is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

What people need to understand is that, while there are misandrist (man-hating) feminists, not all feminists are misandrists. There are extremists in every group, and the unfortunate part is they are often the most vocal, and therefore, the most noticed.

Feminism’s basic definition is the belief that men and women should have social, political, and economic equality. That’s it. Feminism is the reason women can wear pants, hold jobs, and vote. It’s the reason single mothers can win custody of their children, and why women can hold public office. Feminism is responsible for so much of women’s freedoms today.

But there is a whole lot more to do, which is why those women who claim to be against feminism scare me so much. They say they don’t need it because they are not victims, because they are independent, because they can do and be whatever they want. That may be true, but so many women continue to be victims: of rape, sexual harassment, and sexism in the workplace. Their independence continues to be oppressed by emotionally and physically abusive boyfriends, family members, and managers. Women can be whatever we want, but still represent only a small fraction of those in leadership positions. Women can do whatever we want, but the men in those leadership positions still make the decisions of what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Women can be whatever we want, but are still paid less than men on the same career track. Women can do whatever we want, but I’m still afraid to walk home by myself at night.

These are issues that are not magically going to go away, and while women have made social, political, and economic progress, we are far from achieving equality. Feminism’s ultimate goal is to give women the opportunity to be who and what they want, without being held back or judged because of their gender. Whether we want to be a CEO of a large company, a senator, a stay-at-home mom, a priest, a stripper, an entrepreneur, or anything else we could possibly think of, we should have the option. This is why feminism exists, and this is why all women need it, whether we think we do or not.

Feminism is not misandry, and it’s high time society understood that. I am a feminist. I am also happily married to a man, and I like wearing dresses and I like putting on make up. I want equal rights for women, so that all women can marry whoever they choose, or not get married, or dress in 7-inch heels or cowboy boots–so that all women can do whatever they want.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Can You Be a Feminist If You’re Married? appeared first on Law Street.

Okay, so it didn’t try to ban it as much as it suggested that it should be banned–in a poll asking readers to vote which word should be removed from the English language.

Which is still a problem.

TIME is kind of a big deal. I mean, it is nationally recognized for breaking news and excellent writing. So why would a high-brow publication imply that “feminist” is a bad word? And why in the world would it place it alongside words whose use absolutely should be forbidden like “bae” or “turnt”?

Apparently, TIME does not think feminism itself is bad. It just think the word is bad. Yes, let’s by all means quit using the word associated with such a fantastic movement. What would it have us do instead, telepathically communicate our feminist discussions? Keep fighting for feminism, but without talking about it?

The reasoning behind its inclusion on the list seems simple: “When did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party? Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade.”

LOL YOU’RE SO CLEVER, TIME.

Just because celebrities decide to discuss feminism does not mean it is any less important. Besides, celebrities discussing the movement keeps it in the news and in discussions. That is good! As for whether or not “this word applies to them,” doesn’t feminism apply to everyone with social or political views? As in you either agree with feminist ideals or you don’t?

To make its argument even more irrelevant, its cover girl this issue is Taylor Swift–a recently declared feminist–who even discusses her adoption of the title in her TIME interview. The inconsistency is astounding.

For awhile, “feminist” was the option that was ahead in the polls–thanks for the most part to troll factories like 4chan.com and 9gag.com, which have made news recently for targeting feminist celebrities by leaking their nude photographs.

Luckily, TIME editors came to their senses and discontinued the poll. Managing editor Nancy Gibbs even inserted a little note on the article:

TIME apologizes for the execution of this poll; the word ‘feminist’ should not have been included in a list of words to ban. While we meant to invite debate about some ways the word was used this year, that nuance was lost, and we regret that its inclusion has become a distraction from the important debate over equality and justice.

Thanks, Nancy, but maybe you should have caught on to the loss of its “nuance” before the poll was published. Instead of inviting a debate focused on feminism’s true meaning, you invited anti-feminists to exploit the polls and brought negative attention to the concept.

In response to TIME, I will conduct a poll of my own in which you vote on which word is worse than “feminist.” Tweet your vote to @TIME and be sure to include #wordsmoreannoyingthanfeminist. Here are your choices:

• Patriarchy
• Male dominance
• Rape
• Inequality
• Racism
• Bipartisan

Let TIME know what you think.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TIME Ends Feminist-Banning Poll, But It’s Too Little Too Late appeared first on Law Street.

TIME magazine is running an online poll asking which words need to be banned. As TIME explains its own criteria for the “word to ban”:

If you hear that word one more time, you will definitely cringe. You may exhale pointedly. And you might even seek out the nearest pair of chopsticks and thrust them through your own eardrums like straws through plastic lids. What word is this? You tell us.

The words on the list range from industry buzzwords like “influencer” to attacks on pop culture with words like “bae,” “basic,” and “turnt,” to overly misused words like “literally.”

But there’s one that really sticks out to me–“feminist.” TIME thinks feminist is a word so noxious that it’s worth being banned. But it’s not just TIME, but its voters too, because “feminist” is winning with 50 percent of the votes. There is speculation, though, that “feminist” is dominating the poll so heartedly because of the efforts of notable equality-lovers over on 4chan.

There is a multitude of ways in which this upsets me, the point where I literally just can’t even. (One of the other phrases to make the list.)

Feminism has a controversial history, fine, that’s not a secret. Law Street’s feminist blog, by the inimitable Hannah Winsten, is called “The F Word” in a not so subtle nod to the controversy that surrounds the word. And sure, the word feminism has been bastardized and maligned, and yes, there are “feminists” who have taken it too far. It’s a word that has a history just as rich and controversial and storied as the fight for equal rights itself. Just because some people don’t get it, don’t use it correctly, or find it annoying does not strip it of its meaning. The reason that TIME put for including it on the list was:

You have nothing against feminism itself, but when did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party? Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade.

Hey TIME: just because you’re tired of how often the word is used doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be used. And what’s this utter BS about “sticking to the issues” instead. The fact that in this day and age the word “feminist” still invokes so much ridicule and hate is an issue unto itself. If you need to be convinced of this, watch this video of feminists reading threatening tweets about themselves.

The fact that feminism is still so controversial a topic in 2014 that women regularly get rape and death threats tweeted at them is proof that we need the word. Pretending that it doesn’t exist or saying that we need a less controversial word isn’t suddenly going to make these kinds of assholes decide: “Oh, never mind, I guess I’ll stop threatening to rape women because they call what they’re fighting for a different word now. Carry on.”

And why does TIME have such a serious problem with celebrities being asked if they are feminists or not? I’d much rather hear that answer from the people whose faces adorn the news way more than they should than an answer to the “boxers vs. briefs” question for the seven millionth time.

No matter how others try to co-opt the meaning, feminism is a pretty simple concept to understand–according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it means “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” While being a “feminist” means something a little different to each of us who identify that way, to see it on the same page as words like “obvi” and “yaaassss”–which aren’t even words–is insulting. No one has ever been asked if they’re a man-hater or a lesbian (no, those are not the same thing but yes some people think they are) for typing “yaaassss.” No one has ever, to my knowledge, gotten death threats for using the word “obvi.” There’s history there, and for TIME to pretend that there isn’t is offensive.

For the record, even if TIME bans the word, I’m going to keep identifying as a feminist. It’s part of my story, my history, and my worldview. I’m a feminist and damn proud of it. Too bad a magazine with the twelfth highest circulation in the country is too ashamed to say the same thing.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No TIME, We Shouldn’t Ban the Word Feminist appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday September 21, a recently appointed UN ambassador gave a speech on gender equality that received a standing ovation. That ambassador was Emma Watson, the 24-year-old woman most know for playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films. Her topic was feminism and a campaign the UN is launching called “HeForShe,” which Watson will spearhead. You can watch the entire speech below.

Since Sunday, Watson’s speech has gone viral, garnering support both for her cause and for feminism itself. I was especially pleased to see one of my own Facebook friends share the video with the caption: “Worth the watch, for both men and women! Gave me a whole new perspective on the word ‘feminist’.”

Good! That was the point. Watson shares not only the true definition of feminism, but says that thinking of feminists as “man haters” needs to stop. She said that becoming a feminist should be “uncomplicated” and did not narrow her audience to just women. It was a brilliant speech, and completely deserved the standing ovation.

As is to be expected, what with the internet being the internet, she has also received negative feedback. Some users of 4Chan have created a website threatening to reveal sexually explicit pictures of Watson, claiming that they will somehow demean or demolish her feminist views. Rush Limbaugh (who I think should be taken off air immediately) said in his September 23 broadcast: “I know exactly what she’s talking about here, and it’s youth speaking, it’s youthful idealism speaking.  I mean, the truth is every man knows that women run things…That’s been the problem with feminism all along.  Feminism has sought to change basic human nature, and you can’t do that no matter what you do.”

Wow. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Rush!

Other anonymous critics on sites like Reddit, tumblr, and Imgur agree with Watson’s views on feminism but take issue with the name “HeForShe,” arguing that the preposition “for” implies that men will do all the work and women will sit idly by as males react to her call for action. Still others complain that Watson’s celebrity is giving her an unfair advantage on issues like gender equality; that someone less famous or less attractive should have been able to stand up there and give the speech to the same effect.

Each of these arguments stems, I think, from a place of fear. People don’t like change, and with Watson’s speech taking on the momentum it already has, gender equality has made an enormous leap forward. This is threatening to those who are so entrenched in their male-dominated world that they wouldn’t see it change for anything. To those people I say: too damn bad! Society has changed a thousand times over, and it certainly isn’t done.

Let’s address each of these critiques briefly, so I can point out where they have veered off from logic.

Just a few weeks ago, users of 4chan hacked the phones of female celebrities and leaked their nude photographs online. These same people are at it again, thinking that showing feminist, female celebrities as sexual creatures will somehow undermine their feminist message. The short answer is: it won’t. Just because a woman enjoys sex or flaunts her sexuality does not mean she can’t be a feminist. In fact, if a woman is so comfortable in her own skin that nude photos being leaked doesn’t even phase her, that’s a feminist I would hope people idolize.

As for Rush Limbaugh, he is a prime example of a man who sees his male-dominance being threatened and lashes out in any way possible. His claim that “Feminism has sought to change basic human nature” is bullshit. Human nature may be to blame for many of our baser instincts, like seeking out a mate or wanting to procreate, but one gender dominating the other actually comes — most often — from various religions. Ancient, pagan religions favor women above men, and religions like Christianity favor men. Over the years, society took those religious doctrines and accepted them as fact. Oh and losing the “man-hating” connotation that comes from the word “feminism” being “youthful idealism”? Wrong again, Rush. Feminism isn’t just for 24 year olds, and some of gender equality’s most prevalent spokespeople are decades older than Watson.

Next up, the problem with the name “HeForShe,” If you listen to Watson’s entire speech, you’ll hear her call on men AND women multiple times. She wants women to stop being afraid of calling themselves feminists, and for men to accept the title just as willingly. The name, to me, means that, since men are currently the dominant gender, men need to be a driving force behind changing that. It does not mean that women will sit idly by, it means that both genders will work together to achieve equality. As they should.

Finally, Watson’s celebrity makes me thankful she was the one to make that speech. In a perfect world, any man or woman could have made that speech and gotten the same response, but this is not a perfect world. I have said before that celebrities using their fame to support important causes should be admired, not shamed. Waton’s expansive fan base of both men and women made her the perfect person to make that speech, because those fans that truly respect her will hear it, believe it, and share it.

So, as a fan of Emma Watson and of gender equality, I intend to answer her call to action and continue supporting feminism. After you hear it, what will you do?

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve been on the internet in the last few days, you’ve probably seen news stories about a massive leak of celebrity nude photos. In a rather uncouth display, the mass release has been dubbed “The Fappening” by the internet. It’s a mix of “The Happening,” and…I’ll let you figure out the other part on your own. Celebrities included on the steadily growing list include Jennifer Lawrence, Rihanna, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kirsten Dunst, Kaley Cuoco, Ariana Grande, Kate Upton, Victoria Justice, and more. Some, like Mary Elizabeth Winstead, have acknowledged that the photos were real, while others like Victoria Justice claim they are fakes.

The pictures mostly surfaced on reddit and 4chan beginning on August 31. The photos then made their way to Twitter and other more mainstream sites. Most of the photos seem to have been obtained through hacking iCloud accounts. Put extremely simply, that means that the photos had been stored by the celebrity users to their personal accounts that included storage in the iCloud network. Benefits of the iCloud include the ability to access it from multiple accounts and locations, as well as freeing up space on a hard drive or other storage device.

How exactly the hackers obtained the nude photos is uncertain — they could have exploited a security flaw that Apple was unaware of, or they could have obtained the celebrities’ emails and then managed to gain access to their passwords by guessing security questions or some other method. Since celebrities seem to have been specifically targeted, the average user probably shouldn’t be too worried about sensitive material being stolen off their clouds right now — but the whole controversy does raise questions about cloud-type storage. The FBI has now gotten involved in the scandal and it appears to be searching for the hacker(s) who managed to get into the iCloud accounts and released the photos.

The whole fact that the photos got out in the first place is concerning. Celebrity pictures are leaked frequently, but usually just one or two. These leaks encompass hundreds, perhaps thousands, of photographs of young women whose privacy was seriously invaded for no other reason than the fact that they are both attractive and good at their jobs. And not only have their private accounts been hacked, the omnipresent internet trolls are more than willing to make fun of them for their concerns. Many have said that because the women took the pictures and uploaded them to the cloud at all, they deserve to have them released en masse.

Seriously? These women took pictures in the privacy of their own homes, with no intention of releasing them to the public. True, uploading them to a possibly hackable network was their own choice, but it was far from a damnable one. Imagine that these women had nude pictures taken of them by a peeping tom or a stalker. I have to think the public outcry would be greater — at least I hope it would be — but I don’t really see a huge difference. Either way, privacy is being ignored. The photos that have been leaked were stolen, plain and simple. And now that they’re out there, they’re going to be almost impossible to get down.

There’s a reason that one of the classic nightmare archetypes is realizing that you’re naked somewhere. I have a feeling that even if you’re a famous celebrity, that holds true. To all the people who are looking at the photos right now, please remember that those are real people who did not consent to have these pictures released to the public. Remember that before you look, and think about how you’d feel to have the entire world see your naked photos. I have a feeling it’s eerily similar to a nightmare.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach appeared first on Law Street.