On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backtracked on an agreement he made last year to create an egalitarian space at the Western Wall. He said he would seek what he feels is a better compromise between liberal progressive Jews and ultra-Orthodox Jews. Netanyahu decided to scrap the bill despite previously calling the solution a “fair and creative solution,” according to the Washington Post.

The Western Wall, or the “Kotel” in Hebrew, is one of the holiest sites in the world, and the holiest site for the Jewish people. It marks the only remaining ruins of the second Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The first temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in the sixth century BCE, according to the biblical account. A second temple was built a few decades later, and was ransacked and destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

For years, Jews and tourists from across the globe have traveled to the last remaining wall of the second temple in order to pray and stuff personal notes into the wall’s cracks. But one issue that has stemmed from this tradition is the wall’s gender divided prayer space. Men are allotted about 75 percent of the space, while women are granted a much smaller section.

Israel’s reform and conservative movements, together with Women of the Wall, an Israeli feminist organization, filed an official petition in September to reconfigure the prayer space. This action angered the ultra-Orthodox and decreased the chances for compromise, Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri said.

Senior minister Tzachi Hanegbi has been appointed to seek an alternative solution. Netanyahu plans to meet with senior officials of the bipartisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC President Lillian Pinkus and CEO Howard Kohr made an emergency visit to Jerusalem on Wednesday in order to meet with Israel’s leader, according to Haaretz.

AIPAC released a one-sentence statement expressing its faith in Israel’s democracy as “the best hope for a productive outcome,” according to Haaretz. Netanyahu opted not to meet with American reform and conservative Jewish leaders despite them being in Jerusalem for the Jewish Agency’s Board of Governors summit, according to Times of Israel.

While the ultra-Orthodox community was delighted by Netanyahu’s backtracking, the decision was met with outrage from many Jews in Israel and around the world. In recent years, Women of the Wall has emerged to campaign for changes. The progressive group has advocated for a more egalitarian space at the Western Wall where husbands, wives, and children can pray together instead of being separated by a barrier. Anat Hoffman, director of Women of the Wall, wrote:

This is a bad day for women in Israel. The Women of the Wall will continue to worship at the women’s section of the Western Wall with the Torah scroll, prayer shawls and phylacteries until equality for women arrives at the wall as well.

The reason the barrier is there in the first place is to appease ultra-Orthodox Jews who adhere to the separation of the sexes. At Orthodox synagogues there are “mechitza’s” which separate the men and women during prayer.

Women are not permitted to read aloud from the Torah, wear prayer shawls (talit) or sing at the Western Wall. Women of the Wall also considers it a priority to change those restrictions.

Even some within the Israeli government spoke out against Netanyahu’s decision. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that the prime minister’s choice “causes terrible harm to Jewish unity and to the alliance between the State of Israel and Diaspora Jewry,” according to the Washington Post.

Yaakov Katz, the editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post, wrote a column saying, “Sunday will go down in history as a shameful day for the State of Israel, another nail in the coffin of Israel’s failing relationship with Diaspora Jewry.” Clearly, many Jews in Israel and those living outside the country have had strong negative reactions to Netanyahu’s decision.

Multiple Jewish groups have announced that they will reconsider their relationship with Israel. The board of directors for the non-profit Jewish Agency canceled a dinner that was planned with Netanyahu, according to San Francisco Gate. Additionally, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said he felt betrayed. Since Jacobs sees no point in meeting with Netanyahu at this point, the Union would instead prepare for future debates, according to Times of Israel.

Newly minted ambassador to Israel David Friedman spoke about the controversy while at an event in Jerusalem. Friedman said he understood the frustration, but called for unity and understanding between the two sides, according to Haaretz.

Netanyahu’s decision on the Western Wall represents a huge divide between ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews and non-Orthodox Jews in Israel and around the world. Many American Jews have become frustrated with Netanyahu and the Israeli government in recent years, so this abandonment will only fuel those flames.

Now, the two sides must sit back down and find a compromise. It remains to be seen when a new deal will be reached, but the path there will surely be contentious.

“These negotiations were reached by listening to each other, mutual understanding… The [prime minister] initiated the negotiations and promised us and inspired us and now in one quick swoop without any warning stopped it all,” Hoffman, director of Women of the Wall, said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israeli Government Stalls Plans for an Equal Space at the Western Wall appeared first on Law Street.

Six members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS have resigned in frustration with the Trump’s Administration’s apparent lack of interest in “the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic.”

Since its creation in 1995, the council has sought to craft national policy on the disease, prevent its spread, and promote effective treatment as a cure is developed, according to U.S. News and World Report.

The members of the council who quit began becoming concerned during the 2016 presidential campaign when the Trump team showed little interest in meeting with advocates for those struggling to survive the disease. At that point, while the council noted the Trump camp’s disinterest, they clung to the hope that he could be engaged on the issue once in office, according to U.S. News and World Report.

Things escalated when the White House site “Office of National AIDS Policy” was removed during Trump’s inauguration, said Scott Schoettes, a member of the council since 2014.

The final misstep was when the new American Healthcare Act was passed by the Republican-majority House of Representatives, despite pleas from marginalized communities that it would have disastrous impacts, especially for those with HIV/AIDS.

New HIV infections in America declined 18 percent between 2008 and 2014, according to estimates from the Center for Disease Control. The council worked with the previous administration to create the new healthcare system that provided easier access to diagnosis and treatment. Those who quit the council felt that the new GOP bill would take that away.

Schoettes, and his peers, wanted to provide input for the council, but said that they could no longer stand idly by as the Trump Administration ignored their recommendations. Schoettes wrote in a guest column for Newsweek announcing the resignations:

The Trump Administration has no strategy to address the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic, seeks zero input from experts to formulate HIV policy, and — most concerning — pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease.

Trump has still not appointed anyone to head the White House Office of National AIDS Policy after 150 days, while former President Barack Obama appointed a leader after only 36 days. Schoettes penned the column, but it was cosigned by his partners in resignation Lucy Bradley-Springer, Gina Brown, Ulysses W. Burley III, Grissel Granados, and Michelle Ogle.

While the council can have up to 25 members, it currently has only 15. The council last met in March, at which point the members wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price expressing concern about the repeal of the American Healthcare Act and the impact it would have on access to HIV/AIDS treatment. Price responded with an uninspiring, “perfunctory” response, according to Schoettes, which further frustrated the council.

Still, Schoettes says he and his colleagues have a desire to help the community they have worked with for many years. They don’t foresee Trump mustering any more interest than he has shown, but they hope other politicians find it necessary to work on a serious public health issue. The column finished:

We hope the members of Congress who have the power to affect healthcare reform will engage with us and other advocates in a way that the Trump Administration apparently will not.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Six Members of the HIV/AIDS Council Resign in Frustration appeared first on Law Street.

A product design company has launched a new action figure in the shape of Senator Elizabeth Warren. The company FCTRY–which also makes pacifiers with a mustache and a glitter gel called unicorn snot–has made many political action figures already. It started when Barack Obama was running for president and the company made an Obama figure that became so popular that FCTRY raised over $10,000 for his campaign by donating a portion of the sales. This time, some of the proceeds will go to Emily’s List, a non-profit devoted to helping elect female candidates.

The latest addition became a reality thanks to a Kickstarter campaign, and Elizabeth Warren herself said, “I really like that–that’s cool,” when asked about the new figure by The Worcester Telegram & Gazette. “The moment Mitch McConnell spoke the words, ‘Nevertheless, she persisted,’ we knew Warren had to be our next figure,” said Erica Chon, FCTRY’s content strategist.

Our @SenWarren Action Figure Kickstarter will launch on June 6th! It was quite a journey from sketch to prototype, but she’s ready! pic.twitter.com/Djd1dwpW8o

— FCTRY (@fctry) June 1, 2017

Chon was referring to when Republicans voted to silence Warren on the Senate floor after she had read a letter by Coretta Scott King about Senator Jeff Sessions’ record on civil rights. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked something called Rule 19, which basically states that Senators should not speak ill of each other. That is also when McConnell said the now-famous words, “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”

Nevertheless, she persisted. Company makes Elizabeth Warren action figure, and she loves it. pic.twitter.com/YKYTkkqjfS

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) June 6, 2017

After that day in February, the words became a slogan for Warren fans and feminists. And now everyone can buy their own Warren figure! The miniature Warren will have a “righteous fist” to fight for the middle class and an open hand “to smack down Trump’s policies.” She will also wear a “power blazer, to topple the patriarchy,” among other things.

The phrase came up again on Wednesday when the Senate Intelligence Committee asked intelligence officials whether President Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into potential collusion between his campaign and Russia during the presidential election. Senator Kamala Harris asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if he would give complete independence to Robert Mueller, the independent counsel overseeing the investigation.

When Rosenstein avoided answering, Harris asked for a simple “yes” or “no” answer. But the chairman of the committee, Senator Richard Burr, interrupted Harris and told her she wasn’t being courteous enough. Most people think this was pretty hypocritical, as male senators questioned people just as forcefully without being reprimanded. Now a lot of people, including Senator Warren, started using the slogan again, demanding that male politicians do better.

Silencing @SenKamalaHarris for not being “courteous” enough is just unbelievable. Keep fighting, Kamala! #NeverthelessShePersistedhttps://t.co/58y15qWVzU

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post She Persisted: Elizabeth Warren Becomes an Action Figure appeared first on Law Street.

For the past eighteen years, the Titans of Mavericks surf competition in California has pitted talented surfers from across the world against massive swells that are considered some of the most challenging to surf on the planet. For every one of those eighteen years, the competitors have all been male. Female surfers have been taking on Mavericks for almost as long as the competition has been running, and in recent years it has been increasingly clear that there are qualified female surfers who are ready to join the Titans competition.

In 2015, Sabrina Brennan, a member of the local harbor commission, noticed that the Titans of Mavericks’ five year permit was up for review and that the California Coastal Commission was also reviewing it. Brennan went to work presenting the case that the competition was excluding women; as a result, the commission agreed to adopt a women’s inclusion provision as a requirement for future permits, as well as give Titans a year to create a plan to include more women in the competition.

Despite Titans’ co-founder Jeff Clark arguing that women were already included (as judges and water rescue staff) and that women’s exclusion in the main event was “a performance thing…women just aren’t there yet,” female surfers organized and founded a lobbying group called the Committee for Equity in Women’s Surfing. They partnered with Brennan to draft a demand for a women’s heat at Titans, and the commission unanimously voted to enact it in November 2016.

The women’s heat was structured very differently than the men’s, with only $30,000 in prize money compared to $120,000 for men, and only six surfers competing rather than 24. Nevertheless, the heat was ready to go and female surfers stood on the cusp of competing at a level they had been shut out of for almost two decades–that is, until the organizers of Titans of Mavericks declared bankruptcy in February and the competition was shelved. Female surfers can still surf the waves at Mavericks this year, but they won’t benefit from the publicity, cash prizes, and bragging rights that would have come with a formal competition.

The Titans victory may have been short-lived, but it has set an important precedent for women in surfing and other extreme sports across the world. Women’s sports are underfunded across the board–just think about how the U.S. women’s soccer team has had to sue U.S. soccer for wages equivalent to their male counterparts, despite the fact that they generated nearly $20 million more in revenue than the male team. More than 750 million viewers tuned in to the Women’s World Cup in 2015, yet these athletes still have to go to court to be paid what they’re worth.

Consider how difficult it is to compete as a woman in nontraditional or extreme sports, where even male competitors struggle to establish themselves as serious athletes. Women’s prize are consistently a fraction of men’s, and women rarely receive enough sponsorship to allow them to compete as a full-time career. With glaring inequality in organized women’s sports at multiple levels, from the high school level all the way to professional teams, lobbying individual cities and tournaments may be the future of gender parity in sport.

The Committee for Equity in Women’s Surfing should be used as a template for female athletes both in extreme and traditional sports: if the organizers tell you “no,” go over their heads.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Surf Equity: Titans of Mavericks and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

Misogyny in Brazil is in the spotlight after soccer club Boa Esporte rushed to sign 32-year old goalie Bruno Fernandes de Souza, who was convicted of murdering his girlfriend in 2010. De Souza, widely known as just Bruno, only served seven years out of a 22-year sentence, and reportedly other clubs also tried to sign him as soon as he was released. Bruno was convicted of ordering the torture and dismembering of his former girlfriend, 25-year old model Eliza Samudio, and then having his friends feed her body parts to his dogs.

Samudio was also the mother of Bruno’s child, and he ordered the murder after she demanded that he pay child support. Violence against women is a big problem in Brazil, and the announcement of Boa Esporte’s two-year contract with Bruno sparked outrage from Samudio’s family and others. “Women are outraged and so are the general public. It is as if he had gone unpunished,” wrote Brazilian feminist activist Djamila Ribeiro.

Bruno had his ex-girlfriend murdered, dismembered & fed to dogs.

After just 7 years of a 22-year sentence, he’s got a new club. Revolting. https://t.co/zsDuLQi4HZ

— Joe Crann (@YesWeCrann) March 13, 2017

At least three sponsors have withdrawn their support of Boa Esporte in the wake of this news, but the city of Varghina still backs the club. Samudio’s mother filed an unsuccessful lawsuit asking for Bruno to be sent back to prison, as he might be posing a threat to her grandson. But Boa Esporte’s president Rone Moraes da Costa defended the decision to sign Bruno, saying that he has served his sentence and that Boa Esporte is helping him get back on track, through the “dignity of work.”

This explanation was not enough for protesters, especially after video clips emerged of Bruno celebrating his release from prison with champagne, and  outrage has continued both nationally and from overseas. A demonstration is planned outside the club’s stadium and some fans have pledged to not watch the team play as long as Bruno is a part of it. Recently a group of feminists hacked the club’s website.

ESPORTE INTERATIVO:

Boa Esporte’s official site has been hacked by feminists, after announcing the signing of Bruno who had killed his GF. pic.twitter.com/IpVD5sSkrY

— Seleção Brasileira (@BrazilStat) March 13, 2017

Violence against women and girls in Brazil increased by 24 percent over the previous decade according to Amnesty International, and the government cut the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Racial Equality, and Human Rights last May. Brazil was named one of the worst countries in South America for young women. And as long as powerful organizations care more about publicity and money than standing up for victims of violence, change seems far off. But at least there are feminist movements on the rise. The Popular Feminist Front of Varginha, the group that plans the demonstration at the stadium, wrote in a Facebook post:

We protest both against this contract and against the willingness of the team and its sponsors to have their images linked to feminicide. A woman-killer must not be allowed a life acclaimed by the media. Bruno is no longer just a goalkeeper; his notoriety reflects the ease with which a woman’s life is forgotten in the interests of a sporting career.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Outrage in Brazil After Team Signs Soccer Player Who Murdered His Girlfriend appeared first on Law Street.

In honor of International Women’s Day, organizers of the Women’s March have declared March 8 “A Day Without a Woman.” Here’s what you need to know about the strike and how you can get involved.

How Can I Participate?

According to the organizers’ website, anyone, anywhere can participate in “A Day Without a Woman” in the following ways:

1. Women take the day off, from paid and unpaid labor
2. Avoid shopping for one day (with exceptions for small, women- and minority-owned businesses).
3. Wear RED in solidarity with A Day Without A Woman
4. Male allies lean into care giving on March 8, and use the day to call out decision-makers at the workplace and in the government to extend equal pay and adequate paid family leave for women.

According to the Huffington Post, all 16 public schools in Alexandria, Virginia, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools in North Carolina, and at least one preschool in Brooklyn, New York, have canceled classes Wednesday in anticipation of staff shortages since the vast majority of teachers are women.

Some businesses and organizations, like NARAL Pro-Choice America, have also chosen to close their doors in solidarity with the strike.

What Is the Goal of “A Day Without a Woman”?

The goal of A Day Without a Woman is to both oppose President Donald Trump and “highlight the economic power and significance that women have in the US and global economies, while calling attention to the economic injustices women and gender nonconforming people continue to face.” The strike hopes to promote awareness for women’s equality issues including: the gender pay gap, paid family leave, and reproductive rights.

Will It Work?

It’s hard to say. The only way a strike works is if people actually participate. As Quartz points out, privileged women are more likely to be the ones participating in the strike. A large number of working-class women are expected to abstain from the strike due to the potential repercussions they could face.

Put simply, many women can’t afford to take off an unpaid day of work, or lack any paid time off. Others fear losing their jobs if they strike. In February, a story about twelve employees at the I Don’t Car Bar & Grill in Catoosa, Oklahoma went viral after they were fired via text for staying home to participate in the Immigrant Strike.

The women strike organizers address the issue of privilege, writing:

We must be diligent and look out for each other, using our privilege on behalf of others when it is called for. Social activism is not a privilege. It is a necessity born out of a moral imperative and an imminent threat.

Given the historic number of participants who attended Women’s March events across the country, this strike has the potential to be extremely disruptive. But if even a mere fraction of paid and unpaid women stay home on Wednesday, the organizers will have proven their point–the world needs women!

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the “Day Without A Woman” Strike? appeared first on Law Street.

In case you missed it, a super cool music video of Saudi women doing everything they are not supposed to do has gone viral. The video has been viewed millions of times in the past few weeks alone.

At the start of the video, several Saudi women enter a car with a little boy in the driver seat, since women are not allowed to drive. They are wearing full niqabs covering everything but their eyes. But when the camera cuts back to them outside the car, it turns out they were wearing colorful patterned clothes underneath. They start skateboarding, playing basketball, riding toy cars, and dancing. The women still wear the niqabs over the other layers throughout the video but they also wear Converse shoes and lots of eye makeup. And all of them seem to have a great time.

“The name of the song is ‘Hwages,’ which means something like ‘concerns’ or ‘obsessions,’” said NPR Music’s Anastasia Tsioulcas. “And the lyrics are pretty subversive. They start out, ‘May men disappear, they give us psychological illnesses/none of them are sane, each one has an illness.’” Also, in the middle of the video, there is a cutout of Donald Trump at a podium, with a sign saying “The House of Men” in Arabic.

Tsioulcas said that no one knows who the women are, but that the video’s director is Majed Alesa, who has millions of followers in Saudi Arabia. She also noted there has been more positive feedback than negative, despite the controversial content. Maybe it is time for the most gender-segregated country in the world to start to change?

During the fall, there was a campaign in Saudi Arabia aiming to end the guardianship system that requires women to have male permission before doing many important tasks. More than 14,000 women signed a petition and submitted it to the government. Some of the things women can’t do in Saudi Arabia include drive a car, wear revealing clothes or makeup, interact with men, go to public swimming pools, or even try clothes on when shopping. They are also not allowed to compete in sports at home, but the country did send female athletes to the London Olympics. Conservative clerics then called the athletes “prostitutes.”

Many believe change is within reach, and this music video might just be a proof of that. Check it out!

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saudi Women Skateboard and Criticize Men in Viral Music Video appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump signed an order that will reinstate the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule. It will prohibit international aid groups that receive U.S. funding from providing information about abortions. The fact that Trump, surrounded by other middle-aged white men, signed legislation concerning women’s bodies and reproductive health caused a lot of reactions worldwide. The photo in question looked like this:

As long as you live you’ll never see a photograph of 7 women signing legislation about what men can do with their reproductive organs pic.twitter.com/dXjfVjnRiX

— Martin Belam (@MartinBelam) January 23, 2017

A group of French feminists, calling themselves 52, reacted strongly to the news and created the perfect response. The group took a photo of Hillary Clinton signing papers and merged it with a 2009 photo of President Obama, surrounded by a group of WASPs, female fighters from World War II. They posted the result with the headline, “BREAKING NEWS: In the US ejaculation for non-procreative purposes is now forbidden.”

Imagine the outrage if a room for full of women signed a law legislating men’s sexual organs. Amazing work by French group 52 #marchforlife pic.twitter.com/PtLTVDqLea

— Athena (@AthenaJo_) January 27, 2017

A member of 52, who goes only by Sophie, said that the photo is clearly a joke, but that they made it “to ridicule something that boggles the mind: For centuries, it’s been men who dictate women’s bodies.” She said that men constantly tell women what to do and how to look. And Donald Trump just reversed what progress has been made in recent years by signing this legislation. “This picture of the president shows very well how men get to dictate the rights women have,” Sophie said. “It really wound us up.”

According to many studies, making abortion illegal doesn’t lead to fewer abortions. A ban will only lead to women seeking unsafe abortions that could kill them.

The global gag rule forces healthcare providers around the world to make impossible choices. pic.twitter.com/qPISbonqZW

— Planned Parenthood (@ppsworegon) January 27, 2017

The women founded the group in September and adopted their name because women make up 52 percent of France’s population. They held their first demonstration in France in January, aiming to achieve more empowerment for women. Their photo creation has become hugely popular in only a few days, but will any male politicians actually listen?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the French Feminists Who Created a Viral Parody Photo appeared first on Law Street.

In May 2016, Nicola Thorp arrived at accounting firm PwC in London for her first day as a temporary receptionist. But the first thing her temp supervisor said was that her shoes–a pair of black ballerina flats–were unacceptable, and she would have to get a pair with at least two inch heels. When she refused, she was sent home without pay.

Thorp said that she asked whether the same rules applied to her male colleagues, but the supervisor just laughed at her. The company couldn’t give her a single reason when she asked how wearing heels would improve her work. “I was expected to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I said ‘I just won’t be able to do that in heels,'” she said.

Five months after the incident, Thorp created an online petition that quickly collected more than 150,000 signatures. Dozens of women tweeted photos about wearing flats to work in protest. It prompted an inquiry by two British parliamentary committees. On Wednesday, the committees released a report on the issue and concluded that the outsourcing firm, Portico, had broken the law.

#FamiliarFeminist of the day is #NicolaThorp!! Let’s make the work place safe and comfortable for women everywhere.https://t.co/DmWTikWYgW

— #UndefeatedSisters (@BeandBeyond_) January 27, 2017

This may seem like a petty matter, but for women fighting for professional equality, it is a big step. Aside from the fact that this rule is blatantly old-fashioned and sexist, Thorp also cited public health concerns, as high heels can be damaging to women’s feet. Why should women suffer through wearing them if it doesn’t improve their work, and the same uncomfortable rules don’t apply to men? During their investigation, the committees came across hundreds of cases of women who had been ordered to dye their hair blonde, wear more revealing clothes, or constantly reapply makeup.

The shoes that got Thorp sent home from work are already famous.

@HackneyMuseum Neat bit of contemporary collecting. Shoes that got Nicola Thorp sacked in 2016 pic.twitter.com/NHHkFYqVkL

— Museum of Marco Polo (@MoMarcoPolo) January 4, 2017

The parliamentary report stated that the law needs to be tightened to combat sexism in the workplace. “Discriminatory dress codes remain widespread,” the report said, and reiterated concern for workers who are affected by them, “many of whom are young women in insecure jobs who already feel vulnerable in the workplace.” Even though the dress code that the company imposed on Thorp was unlawful, many companies still require their female employees to wear heels. The government expects companies to research and follow the law voluntarily, but this is not enough, according to the report.

Thorp herself pointed out that now, more than ever, with a U.S. president who brags about grabbing women, it is important for women to speak up about this kind of discrimination. She said:

I refused to work for a company that expected women to wear makeup, heels and a skirt. This is unacceptable in 2017. People say sexism is not an issue anymore. But when a man who has admitted publicly to sexually harassing women is the leader of the free world, it is more crucial than ever to have laws that protect women.

The outsourcing company Thorp was working for, Portico, has said it has rewritten its appearance guidelines. It used to include warnings against greasy hair or flower accessories, and demanded heels two to four inches high, makeup “worn at all times” and “regularly reapplied,” with a minimum of lipstick, mascara, and eye shadow. Representatives for the company she was sent to work for, PwC, emphasized that the heels requirement was not in their guidelines and that they are committed to gender equality.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nicola Thorp: Woman Who Was Sent Home for Wearing Flats Sparks Change in the UK appeared first on Law Street.

Online sexual harassment and revenge porn have become relatively commonplace. Here at Law Street, we’ve written a number of articles on the topic in the last couple of weeks alone. From the lawyer fighting revenge porn to the online harassment of journalist Lauren Duca, there are concerns that this kind of behavior has become the norm in America. In fact, in September, President-elect Donald Trump was accused of something revenge-porn-like himself, when he encouraged his Twitter followers to look for Alicia Machado’s sex tape.

This is clearly something that we’re going to have to deal with in coming years. But what exactly is revenge porn? And what do you do if it happens to you?

What is Revenge Porn?

This phenomenon is also known as nonconsensual pornography (NCP), and is defined as the distribution of sexually explicit photos or videos of someone else, without that person’s permission. This has become an increasingly worrisome problem in the age of technology. Many young men ask their girlfriends to send them explicit photos, many women comply, and vice versa. But a breakup with the wrong kind of person could mean that those photos end up publicly available on some website, often with the subject’s name and personal information. In most cases, men post the photos or media online as a response to a perceived wrongdoing. Not only is revenge porn a form of online harassment, it can also lead to further harassment for the victim.

Though most cases of revenge porn involve photos that women take themselves for private use, or those taken by a partner, some cases are more complicated than that. In 2009, 32-year-old hacker Luis Mijangos gained access to multiple people’s computers by sending them files with malware that hijacked their webcams. He was able to see whatever was going on in front of the camera and saved pictures and videos of people nude or having sex. Sometimes he sold his services to men who wanted to spy on their girlfriends or wives, sometimes he extorted the victims for money. But in some cases, he just wanted to watch people, and that’s creepy enough.

Today, more and more states have legislation that criminalizes these acts, but as it is a relatively new concept, many do not, and many law enforcement officials don’t know how to handle it. In those cases, victims often need to rely on federal laws and related criminal statutes that may apply.

What do you do if it happens to you?

According to Cyber Civil Rights, you should make sure to save any evidence of the revenge pornography, like results from Googling your name, screenshots of the pages, texts, or emails that were sent to you–basically anything that proves you are a victim of NCP. When you have saved the proof you need, most social media websites restrict nudity, so you can report any photos or videos you want taken down. When it comes to other websites though, it can be trickier than that.

The Communications Decency Act protects websites from prosecution if they are a mere medium for others to post information. If the website has no “opinion” and doesn’t affect the content whatsoever, it is not liable for anything that is found on there. But as soon as someone representing the website publishes or edits any content, they can no longer claim immunity and you can likely go ahead and sue them.

Another option is to take advantage of existing copyright law. This only works if you took the photo yourself. A photo taken by a person is automatically protected under copyright law and the “author” of it can demand that it be taken down from any website simply by sending a letter, quoting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But if someone else took the photo in question, or if you want to claim damages, you would have to file a lawsuit.

You could try utilizing some other laws, depending on your location. In some states it’s a crime to take nude photos of someone else without their knowledge and it can be punishable as disorderly conduct. Harassment laws could also be an option, though they require repeated actions, not singular incidents. If you are under 18 and someone shares nude photos of you, that is a crime, as it’s likely considered child pornography and could lead to prosecution, a considerable prison term, and require that person to register as a sex offender. As cases of revenge porn, and the backlash against them, become more prevalent–this is good info for all of us to have.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Can We Fight Revenge Porn? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Matt Lauer #LauerstheBar

Matt Lauer was the moderator last night for an open forum with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Lauer sat down for a 30 minute interview with each candidate, and the forum was broadcast live on NBC. But as the forum progressed, the audience had a lot of criticism for Lauer. Specifically, many were mad that Lauer didn’t press Trump on statements he made about the Iraq War:

Would be good, maybe, if Matt Lauer had done some ~basic~ research about Trump’s repeated lies before you know, doing an interview with him.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) September 8, 2016

And a new hashtag, #LaueringTheBar was created to mock Lauer’s performance:

No one could have predicted that someone who normally does waterskiing squirrel stories would have failed at real journalism #LaueringTheBar

— Arthur Bannister (@NeverMetAMorph) September 8, 2016

Ouch!

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Domestic abuse isn’t always physical, it doesn’t always leave bruises, and it’s not always visible to the naked eye. Abuse can be mental, emotional, and verbal–and Zahira Kelly wanted to call attention to that fact when she started the hashtag #MaybeHeDoesntHitYou. An artist and writer, Kelly told Bustle:

Women’s primary cause of harm and death is abuse from their loved one. The toll is in the millions and has been especially damaging to colonized women such as myself. The genocide and slavery we endured were justified via the same abuse culture that we face today. This is hundreds of years of abuse of all forms from the most extreme to the most subtle.

The hashtag has encouraged thousands of women to share their experience with abuse. Here are some of the powerful responses:

#maybehedoesnthityou but he constantly criticizes your clothes, your makeup, your body, instructs you to work out and be more ‘feminine.’

— Laurie Penny (@PennyRed) May 11, 2016

#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but he manipulates you into thinking that you’re ugly, worthless, stupid and undeserving of all the good things in life

— Feminism Matters (@WeNeedFeminlsm) May 11, 2016

#maybehedoesnthityou but he manipulates you and threatens to commit suicide if you leave him.

— LOAFANGURL101 (@KATHERINEALKA) May 10, 2016

#maybehedoesnthityou but he tries to control who you talk to, where you go, what friends you can have, and acts like it’s out of love.

— sailor mourn (@detricotage) May 9, 2016

#maybehedoesnthityou but you need his approval for everything and he treats you like property and not a person

— Keegan Kenzie (@Keegannnnn) May 9, 2016

#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but he’s conditioned you into thinking you’re supposed to ask him before you hang out with other male friends

— jih like lolita (@nangatse) May 9, 2016

#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but you avoid saying or doing things because you don’t want to have to deal with how he might react.

— Jennifer Hodgson (@jennifer_hodg) May 9, 2016

#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but he makes sure you believe that you’re too broken/damaged to ever be wanted by anyone else

— Just Juanita (@Just_Juanita) May 9, 2016

#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but he makes you feel like all your emotions are stupid and makes you apologize for them

— lindsay (@sloppybankroll) May 9, 2016

#MaybeHeDosentHitYou but he sends messages like this https://t.co/Q3REBLY4cX

— Fatoumata (@Kamari_Danae) May 11, 2016

Domestic abuse is a topic that for too long we have been reluctant to talk about and has remained in the shadows. While there’s certainly more work to be done, this hashtag certainly is another step toward beginning that conversation. 

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 #MaybeHeDoesntHitYou: Hashtag Sheds Light on Non-Physical Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

The New Hampshire House just rejected a law that would have made it illegal for women to go topless or expose their breasts or nipples in public. Partly a response to the “Free the Nipple” movement that has begun to reverberate around the U.S., breaking the law could have gotten a topless female offender a misdemeanor. While luckily the bill was shot down, the entire debate is absolutely ridiculous.

The “Free the Nipple” movement is a social media campaign dedicated to taking the stigma away from female toplessness, both in public as well as on social media. Here’s a trailer for the 2014 movie based on the movement:

In New Hampshire, two women were arrested on the beach in Gilford last year for going topless, but no charges against them stuck because at the time it was legal for both men and women to be topless in the state. But the “Free the Nipple” movement, combined with the arrests, led lawmakers in New Hampshire to propose the bill making it illegal for a woman to “purposely expos[e] the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts in a public place.” If a woman broke the law twice, she could end up on the sex offender registry. There were exceptions written into the law for breastfeeding mothers.

The co-sponsors of the bill argued that women appearing topless was a threat to society as we know it, which seems like quite a hefty burden to place on shirts. State Representative Brian Gallagher, a Republican who co-sponsored the bill stated:

It’s a shame that some folks are more concerned with exposing their breasts in public places than they are concerned about how families and children may be impacted by being forced to experience this evolving societal behavior. This is about a movement to change the values of New Hampshire society.

Gallagher and another co-sponsor Representative Peter Spanos also cited “Little League games” and “libraries” as places that women are just dying to show up to topless. In a spat between some of the legislators on Facebook, Representative Josh Moore stated that a woman should expect to have her breasts grabbed if she appears in public topless, saying:

If it’s a woman’s natural inclination to pull her nipple out in public and you support that than you should have no problem with a mans inclantion [sic] to stare at it and grab it. After all… It’s ALL relative and natural, right?

Bad grammar and spelling aside, Moore’s assertion that a woman not wanting to get slapped with a misdemeanor for taking her shirt off is tantamount to her deserving to be groped is inappropriate at best, and condoning assault at worst.

The law didn’t pass the house, and rightfully so, given that it would blatantly create different standards for men and women. And, as my favorite argument (courtesy of the New Hampshire ACLU) pointed out: “in a state with an average temperature of only 46 degrees, the risk of rampant nudity seems rather low.”

So, New Hampshire women, you won’t be slapped with a misdemeanor if you’re topless…despite the best yet totally misguided efforts of some of the legislators in your state.

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 New Hampshire House Rejects Silly Bill Criminalizing Female Toplessness appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has been on social media during the past couple of weeks has seen the slow descent of Kanye West into what we can only call apparent madness. From his eloquent assertion that Bill Cosby is, in fact, innocent (despite over 50 public accusations of sexual assault):

BILL COSBY INNOCENT !!!!!!!!!!

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 9, 2016

To his admission that he is millions of dollars in debt, and the request that billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg bail him out:

I write this to you my brothers while still 53 million dollars in personal debt… Please pray we overcome… This is my true heart…

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 14, 2016

Mark Zuckerberg invest 1 billion dollars into Kanye West ideas

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 14, 2016

Then, of course, we have the lyrics in one of his songs on the newly released album “The Life of Pablo,” which are allegedly about Taylor Swift: “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex / I made that bitch famous.”

It would be easy to brush all this off as a publicity stunt to draw attention to his album release, but this is not the first time Kanye has attempted to undermine Taylor Swift’s success. Let’s all flashback to the 2009 VMAs when he interrupted Taylor’s acceptance speech to tell the audience that Beyonce probably should have won.

T-Swift has reacted with humor and grace to most of Kanye’s gaffes, but even she had to take a stand against the misogynistic and disrespectful tone of this last attack. A representative of Swift said she was unaware of the lyric before the song was released, and did not by any means approve it.

While friends and supporters of Swift took to social media with their criticisms of Kanye’s misogyny, Swift used her Album of the Year Grammy win as a platform to call out Kanye, and on a broader scale, anyone who has attempted to minimize female success.

As the first woman to win Album of the Year at the Grammys twice, I want to say to all the young women out there, there will be people along the way who will try to undercut your success, or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame. But if you just focus on the work … you will look around and you will know that it was you and the people who love you that put you there. That will be the greatest moment.

This is not an unusual statement for the feminist artist, who has promoted self-acceptance and gender equality more than once on award ceremony stages. This particular feminist speech just has the bonus of shutting down the Cosby-supporting Kanye.

Keep being a fabulous feminist, Taylor.

Watch the moment below:

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 Taylor Swift Takes Feminist Stance Against Kanye West appeared first on Law Street.

In an attempt to match some of the sexist legislation that’s been passed in state legislatures lately, a Kentucky state representative has drafted a bill to create several new hoops for men to jump through in order to purchase drugs that treat erectile dysfunction.

Representative Mary Lou Marzian wants to use her bill, HB 396, to call attention to the amount of intervention into women’s health rights from the primarily male General Assembly of Kentucky. She condescending phrases back at the men who use similar arguments to defend their anti-abortion legislation. Saying things like, “this is about family values” and “I want to protect these men from themselves,” whenever she talks about why she decided to craft this bill.

The bill itself has whereas clauses that stipulate the potential risks of taking drugs like Viagra and Cialis and a well thought out list of regulations that will be placed on men trying to buy these drugs if the bill is passed. What are these regulations? There are four in total:

1. Men will have to consult a doctor on two separate occasions before getting a prescription for these drugs.
2. These drugs will only be prescribed to married men.
3. Men will need to have a letter of consent from their spouse in order to get a prescription.

And the kicker:

4. Men will have to make a sworn statement, with their hand on a bible, saying that they will only use the drug for sexual relations with their own wife.

Marzian’s bill is specifically meant to attack another piece of legislation known as the informed consent bill, which was signed into law earlier this month by Kentucky’s Governor, Matt Bevin. That law requires women who are considering an abortion to meet with a doctor–either in person or via video–within 24 hours of going to have this abortion. The law, which was drafted and passed almost exclusively by men, is supposedly an attempt to create a state that places a greater emphasis on family values. Rep. Marzian, a Democrat from Louisville,  that Republican lawmakers frequently use these positions on abortion as talking points to improve their chances of reelection. She’s concerned with the way they frame the abortion restrictions in terms of support for :

They say they’re about protecting the family, but they won’t vote to regulate booster seats, to enforce smoking bans or for early child education.

In reality, what this bill actually does is place more requirements on women trying to get an abortion, essentially shaming them for an already potentially traumatizing procedure. These bills may not be as focused on family values as the legislature might like to claim.

What has the response to her tongue-and-cheek proposal been like? Some people don’t get it; they think that Rep. Marzian’s legislation is a bill that will likely become a law, rather than a clever form of social commentary. On Facebook, comments have gotten heated. Some readers argue that the government needs to get out of our personal lives, claiming that it’s pretty frightening that a representative thinks that filling a prescription and abortion are the same. Clearly, those commenters just don’t get it.

Just like Leslie Knope shaming men holding “Yes All Men” and “Protect HIStory” signs at a political rally, Rep Marzian is calling out the hypocrisy of men telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies, claiming they are just doing what they know is best for us. The bottom line is, we have got to move past this whole protector image that old white men in the government have of themselves. Women are doing just fine and know how to make decisions about their own health; we certainly don’t need men protecting us from ourselves.

Though no one expects it to actually go anywhere, the bill provokes an interesting discussion and is a brilliant way to call out the instances of sexism that we see so often in our legislatures today. Word on the street is that this liberal Kentucky representative isn’t done yet, either. She supposedly has plans in the work to introduce a new bill requiring people wanting to obtain a gun permit to talk to victims of gun violence 24 hours before receiving the permit. I guess trolling state legislators may just be the new way to get things done and make a statement these days–keep it up, Mary Lou!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Permission Slips for Viagra? Kentucky Rep. Gives Men a Taste of Their Own Medicine appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview with comedian Bill Maher on Friday, feminist activist and bestselling author Gloria Steinem–along with her usual dose of humor-laced progressive statements–said something that was not so progressive. In fact, in their discussion of young female activism and the 2016 Democratic party candidates, Steinem’s statements sounded, dare I say it, sexist. She implied that young women only make decisions based on their love life, and that older generations of women are wiser because of their years dealing with oppression:

Women are more for [Clinton] than men are … First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience … Not to over-generalize, but … men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age.

And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.

Women were quick to take to social media after Steinem’s statements, starting the hashtag #NotHereForBoys.

Let @GloriaSteinem know – we are here to ORGANIZE for and #NotHereForBoys: https://t.co/Iufi6VthIn#FeelTheBern pic.twitter.com/hp8dcUOwGf

— People For Bernie (@People4Bernie) February 7, 2016

#NotHereForBoys. I support @BernieSanders because he stand for #climate action and workers’ rights.

— Aly Johnson-Kurts (@AlyJohnsonKurts) February 7, 2016

>@GloriaSteinem I’m here to elect a candidate not beholden to wall street donation. I’m #NotHereForBoys

— Moumita Ahmed (@MouBerningluv) February 7, 2016

I’m a 2 tour combat vet, here to vote for taxing big banks and businesses, civil rights, free tuition, universal healthcare. #NotHereForBoys

— sarah leifheit (@fleurdesarah) February 7, 2016

I never thought I’d see the day where I was thoroughly insulted by @GloriaSteinem #NotHereForBoys #FeelTheBern #IActuallyHaveABrain ✋

— Chrissy (@Christinker) February 6, 2016

Feminists, especially those feeling the Bern, have been left flabbergasted by Steinem’s statement. It comes from a woman who has praised millennial women for their activism, and who has actually endorsed Bernie as an “honorary woman” during one of his past campaigns. Bernie is, arguably, the most radical candidate in the presidential race, throwing a wrench into her theory that women radicalize as they age. What makes it worse is that Bill Maher, who is funny but sometimes walks the line separating humor and sexism, turned it back around on her, pointing out that if he had said the same thing Steinem probably would have reprimanded him. So what gives?

It goes without saying that, whatever your political stance, you should choose which candidate best matches your beliefs. And while it may have been true when Steinem was in her 20s that women changed their opinions to find men, it certainly is not the case today.

Watch the entire interview below.

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 Feminist Gloria Steinem Faces Backlash From Bernie Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

With the Iowa caucuses rapidly approaching and the New Hampshire primary not too far behind, recent poll results on both sides of the aisle have become all the rage. The slow but steady rise of support for Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has certainly been a phenomenon to watch as he works on closing the gap between the support for his campaign and the support for Hilary Clinton’s–the other likely option for Democratic presidential nominee. But why has Senator Sanders been rising in the polls? And who has been boosting these numbers? Recent polling shows that it may actually be millennial women who are blowing up Bernie’s ratings, rather than the “Berniebros” that many have assumed were his main supporters.

Hillary is still polling better nationally, but recent numbers suggest that Bernie may not be too far behind, and the support he has been garnering among young voters may be just what he needs to have a shot at the nomination. In a recent USA Today/Rock the Vote Millennial Poll, people between the ages of 18 and 25 were found to show strong support for Bernie Sanders. Men under 35 are supporting Sanders over Clinton by four percentage points, but the real kicker happens to be (you guessed it) millennial women. They favor Sanders by just under 20 points, possibly disappointing their mothers who belong to the baby boomer generation currently mostly in favor of Clinton.

So why are these millennial women so into Sanders? It all comes down to the issues that they care about. The USA Today poll also reported that some of the issues younger voters cared most about were related to gun control, welcoming refugees, fixing police corruption, and getting rid of extreme poverty. These hot button topics that are worrying liberal-minded millennials are the same issues Sanders’ campaign is focusing on: racial justice, living wages, humane immigration politics, and so much more. In addition, some of the issues Sanders is most passionate about are problems directly influencing young women today, such as expanding Planned Parenthood and making college tuition lower or–dare I say it–even free. This young generation of voters is thrilled with his willingness to engage in some of the most prevalent issues in our country and the solutions he proposes to fix them. Fewer young women are buying into the idea that this opportunity for a woman president has to be seized in order to promote the feminist agenda.

Even with the upward trend in Bernie buzz, there’s still a challenging road ahead for his campaign if he wants to win the Democratic nomination. The biggest roadblock is predicted to be a lack of voter turnout amidst Sanders’ most avid supporters, as millennial voter turn out has been particularly weak in the past few years, with an all-time low in the 2014 midterm elections. But, if these voters do show up, Clinton could be in for yet another presidential nomination upset, and everybody running her campaign seemingly knows it. Clinton’s campaign has gone from practically ignoring Sanders’ presence to directly engaging with him in debates and acknowledging him as a serious opponent.

There’s a little under a month until all the polls and predictions will start giving way to actual results and the Democratic Party will start to find out who their presidential nominee will be–all of the candidates need as much help as they can get. At the end of the day, whether it stems from millennial women’s residual dreams of their own shot at being the first female president, or their honest faith in the Bernie Sanders platform, this support could be just what Bernie needs to snatch the nomination right out from under Hillary’s nose.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Millennial Women are Feeling the Bern appeared first on Law Street.

Emma Watson continues to fight the good fight of gender equality, and is channeling everyone’s favorite bookworm Hermione Granger, with an online feminist book club.

It’s official – ‘Our Shared Shelf’ is up and running. First book – My life on the road. https://t.co/nVWNPy21za

— Emma Watson (@EmWatson) January 7, 2016

So grab a glass of wine and sign up for Goodreads, because this is going to be excellent. Almost as excellent as this moment:

…almost.

Aside from her acting career, Watson serves as a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, famously making a speech introducing the HeForShe campaign in 2014. She called all women and men to the fight for gender equality.

A feminist book club is a most appropriate way to continue the message that feminism is, in fact, for everyone. Not only is it online, free, and readily accessible for anyone with an Internet connection, but the club promises to be ready with open arms for any and all discussions and debates.

Watson says she was inspired to begin the club through her work with UN Women:

As part of my work with UN Women, I have started reading as many books and essays about equality as I can get my hands on. There is so much amazing stuff out there! Funny, inspiring, sad, thought-provoking, empowering! I’ve been discovering so much that, at times, I’ve felt like my head was about to explode… I decided to start a Feminist book club, as I want to share what I’m learning and hear your thoughts too.

She also promises to try and get featured authors and experts in various fields to join the discussion. The best part? Over 80,000 people have already joined. Who knew that all we needed to get every feminist in one place was a book club?

Clearly, 80,000 doesn’t encompass the totality of the feminist movement, but Watson only started floating the idea last week, so there’s plenty of time for the numbers to grow.

Hi Team, I want to start a feminist book club but so far have only brainstormed ‘Feminist Book Club’ and ‘Emma Watson Book Club’.

— Emma Watson (@EmWatson) January 6, 2016

And the first book on the list? Gloria Steinem’s “My Life on the Road.” Which, I can attest, is a brilliant manifesto of the feminist icon’s life.

Naturally, this being the age of the Internet and thus of Internet trolls, an online discussion forum with a lead topic of feminism will be susceptible to mean-spirited comments and remarks of those who just don’t understand what feminism is. Luckily, those tens of thousands of feminists already signed up will be ready with witty comebacks–or at least a few good reaction gifs:

So go forth and read, you wonderful feminists!

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 Why We Should All Join Emma Watson’s Feminist Book Club appeared first on Law Street.

Season four of “The Mindy Project” featured Mindy Lahiri battling her traditional fiancé (Danny Castellano) to continue working as an OBGYN rather than becoming a stay at home mother. In the United States, stay at home mothers are still far more common than stay at home fathers–so the couples’ fight, although fictional, reflected our national gender expectations.

In the second-to-last episode Mindy finally says the things to Danny that had probably come to the wealthy, New York doctor’s mind the minute she had first heard of his desire for her to give up her career and her new fertility clinic.

Here is an excerpt from the climactic argument:

Danny: Oh, yeah, right, right, your career.  You’re too busy getting half of Manhattan knocked up, and Leo, he’s just out there by himself alone, playing pat-a-cake against a wall while his Mom’s working?…
Mindy: Every time that you disagree with something that I do, it’s a referendum on my character. If I want to go to work, it means I’m a bad mother. If I want to have a second glass of wine, it means I’m out of control.…In your eyes every single thing I do is more evidence that I’m a bad person.
Danny: You’re not a bad person. You want me to help you make good decisions, don’t you?
Mindy: Yeah, I thought I made good decisions, and now you’re just making all the decisions for me.
Danny: So what, if it’s the right decision?…You are an amazing mom…Why not do it again?
Mindy: I’m also a good doctor. I don’t want to have to give up any more to have more kids.
Danny: That’s selfish.

And don’t worry, the fight does not end there. Mindy makes clear, in no uncertain terms, that her desire to keep her career, which she has invested at least 11 years of her life just to be trained in, does not make her selfish. At last she stands up for herself. After Danny’s season-long agonizingly belittling utterances, to the mother of his child, Mindy’s rational, valid points are more than welcome. She even throws in some impressive diction (i.e. “referendum”). But the one thing Mindy doesn’t say to her partner is: Why don’t you be the stay at home parent?

The season finale takes viewers back to Mindy and Danny’s introduction. Mindy is able to perform a difficult delivery that Danny had scheduled as a C-section. The plot suggests Mindy is the better doctor because she performed a difficult maneuver so the patient could have her preferred natural birth plan, instead of Danny’s preferred C-section plan. So, from a logistical stand point, why should the better doctor stop working just because she is a mother?

Working moms are nothing new to American television or American reality. In 2012, 29 percent of mothers, with underage children, stayed at home and did not work. Meaning that, in the United States, working mothers are the norm. But despite the power of those numbers, 51 percent of participants in a 2013 Pew Research Center survey said children were better off if they had mothers who stayed at home rather than worked, while only 8 percent said the same about fathers.

So, in 2015, is it too radical to suggest, on television or in reality, that the man occupy the domestic sphere? Too radical for even Mindy to utter? Apparently so.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What’s Wrong With a Mr. Mom? “The Mindy Project” Explores the Working Mom’s Conundrum appeared first on Law Street.

On December 14, 2015, Serena Williams was named the Sports Illustrated “Sportsperson of the Year.” But, despite the fact that Williams went 53-3 in the 2015 season and earned five titles including Wimbledon, the Australian Open, and the French Open, and despite the well-earned SI title for her dominant performance in tennis, Williams’ accomplishments haven’t been without severe criticism and personal attack.

Quite noteworthy is the fact that a woman has not achieved this title by herself in over 30 years–since 1983. Yet, to the dismissal of such an empowering feminine feat and celebratory cause, the public lost their bananas that American Pharaoh, the Triple Crown winning horse, did not win “Sportsperson of the Year.”

Huh? Excuse me for not understanding, but why would a horse trump a person for the Sportsperson award? How does that make any sense? The outrage over Williams’ triumph is actually quite ridiculous–that in and of itself is the outrage–that people cannot support a strong, confident, independent woman who is setting an impeccable example of dreaming, hard work, and success for young women and athletes around the world.

Further adding insult to injury, not only did the haters loudly and colorfully express their disdain that Williams won SI’s “Sportsperson” award, claiming that American Pharaoh was at a disadvantage because he “couldn’t display sportsmanship,” something that can only be done by a person, but critics further lashed out at the magazine’s cover rolling out the royal treatment to highlight the award’s recipient. Critics actually defended and made an argument for American Pharaoh under an affirmative action basis–that the criteria and policy used by Sports Illustrated placed American Pharaoh at a disadvantaged position to show sportsmanship and be the “Sportsperson of the Year.” What? Ridiculous. As the queen of tennis sat on her gold throne, dazzling in black lace, looking as powerful and dominant as ever, the persistent and consistent racist, dehumanizing, and body-shaming critics trolled in. Williams, a developing and trending fashion icon who has her own HSN line and has graced the covers of various magazines, including Vogue (twice), and is no stranger to criticism, took the cynics on in stride like the lady that she is, stating:

I’ve had people look down on me. I’ve had people put me down because I didn’t look like them, I look stronger. I’ve had people look past me because of the color of my skin. I’ve had people overlook me because I was a woman. I had critics say I will never win another Grand Slam when I was only at number seven and now here I stand today with 21 Grand Slam titles and I’m still going.

Serena Williams used a platform built out of negativity, stereotypes, racism, misogyny, and hate to spread a positive and inspiring message to women and people of color–chase your dreams and do not for a minute focus on what other people say about you because they will talk regardless. “You have to believe in yourself…sometimes you have to be your own cheerleader,” Williams stated in her speech posted above.

Her point is proven in the fact that she has consistently dealt with body-shaming critics, some saying that she is too large, too muscular, too masculine, and overly built, which drastically separated her in appearance from her opponents. It did separate her from her opponents most notably in her performance and domination of the sport, and her own opponents began to highlight her different appearance in negative ways. In 2012, Caroline Wozniacki stuffed her chest and behind area with towels to imitate Serena Williams against Maria Sharapova.

Most recently, it has been said that Williams’ SI cover makes her thighs look too skinny or that she is buying into the idea that sex sells and spreading the ideology, against feminism and women, that sexiness in marketing is required to get attention and recognition as a female athlete. However, the double standard holds true–men gracing the cover of SI for the “Sportsperson of the Year” award have never had to worry whether their cover would be seen as too sexy or too suggestive. How exactly is a woman supposed to present herself when she is told she is too large and too masculine one minute and too sexy the next? Is there a happy medium?

Regardless of the haters, Serena Williams deserves to be the Sports Illustrated “Sportsperson of the Year.” Her domination in tennis highlights her as one of the best female tennis players in history. She is a strong and independent woman who is setting an incredible example for young women and female athletes. Let us silence the neigh-sayers because this queen absolutely deserves her throne.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Serena Williams Served Up Backlash and Criticism for “Sportsperson of the Year” Win appeared first on Law Street.

Feminism fights for political, social and economic equality for every gender, and this year we saw several amazing examples of that fight. It was a year of struggle, but if feminists in 2015 have proven anything, it’s that we will always push back against anything–or anyone–who tries to bar any group of people from their basic human rights. Here are just a few of my favorite feminist moments from 2015.

1. Celebrities stand up for equal pay.

Image courtesy of [Disney/ABC Television Group/Craig Sjodin via Flickr]

Back in February, the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress, Patricia Arquette, took her opportunity on stage to deliver a powerful message about the wage gap:

To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation we have fought for everybody’s equal rights. It is our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.

While her comments after she left the stage have been called into question, her main point is clear: the wage gap exists and it’s time we acknowledge and fix it.

Then, in October, Jennifer Lawrence called Hollywood out on the fact that she earned less than her male co-stars, and realized her own insecurity with asking for what she deserved:

I didn’t want to seem ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’ At the time, that seemed like a fine idea, until I saw the payroll on the Internet and realized every man I was working with definitely didn’t worry about being ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’

Her fear of being judged for her confidence is something many women struggle with. It is high time we stop apologizing for demanding equality.

2. Feminist Democrats announce their candidacies for President.

It came as no surprise when Hillary Clinton submitted her name for the presidential ballot. Needless to say, America’s first female president would have the potential to move the country rapidly towards true gender equality. If fellow female candidate, Republican Carly Fiorina, had proven herself to be a champion for equal rights, I’d be cheering her on, too. Unfortunately, she has demonstrated that not every woman believes in feminist ideals.

And let’s not forget that men can be feminists as well. Martin O’Malley, the Democratic Governor of Maryland, has fought for not only women’s rights, but equal rights for people of all genders and sexual orientation.

Welcome to MD @MittRomney. FYI, in our State we don’t try to take away women’s health services. We work to expand them.

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) March 21, 2012

Hillary’s main competition for the Democratic bid, Senator Bernie Sanders, was asked by the Washington Post if he is a feminist, to which he replied, “Yes.” His long political career certainly shows that:

In terms of women’s rights, you’re looking at somebody who, to the best of my knowledge, has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record. You’re looking at somebody who’s made a cornerstone, a key part of my campaign, the need for at least three months of family and medical leave; somebody who is fighting to raise the minimum wage over a two year period to $15 an hour, which will benefit everybody, but women actually more than men; somebody who regards it as enormously important that we fight for pay equity for women…So I think if people look at my record, I think they will see somebody who has had a lifelong record of support for the women’s movement and women’s rights.

So whoever becomes the Democratic candidate for POTUS, equal rights will certainly be at the forefront of their platform, and that is truly exciting.

3. “‘Playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

The women of the United States national soccer team took on the Japanese in July for the final game of the FIFA World Cup–and they won. It was the most-watched, televised soccer game ever, male or female, in the history of the U.S.

While honoring the team a few months later, President Obama sang their praises, saying, “This team taught all of America’s children that ‘playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

And of course, he’s right. Now, if only those female athletes would get the same pay as their male counterparts.

4. Same-sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

June was a historic month for marriage equality, when the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Despite push back from people like the county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, justice prevailed and now people of any gender can marry whoever they want to.

5. “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

Image courtesy of Charlotte Cooper via Flickr

The battle to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood has been raging for months, with men and women alike fighting tooth and nail to prove that the medical institution is more than just abortions. Thanks to a slanderous smear campaign of doctored videos earlier in the year, Planned Parenthood’s use of funding and ethical practices were called into question. That campaign was later proved to be based on false claims, and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards valiantly took on the opposition in a brilliant testimony, but the damage had already been done. House Republicans have attempted numerous times to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal support, which would surely cripple the organization that has helped millions of men and women with reproductive and basic health services. Planned Parenthood supporters took to the streets and to social media to show their support, with rallies, parades and campaigns like #ShoutYourAbortion. The outpouring of people standing behind Planned Parenthood proves that the Republican-controlled Congress does not have the interests of most Americans at heart, and brings the issue of reproductive rights to the forefront.

6. Study proves men and women are wired the same. 

In a study published in November in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers have proven that there is no difference between the brains of men and women:

Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain.

They found that, while some characteristics are more common in one gender over the other, those characteristics are not exclusive to one gender, and the brain is made up of complex “mosaics.” Despite an age-old belief, the human brain cannot be classified based on gender. Men and women have the same brains.

7. The U.S. Military opens all combat roles to women.

In August, women everywhere cheered on the success of the first two female soldiers to complete the Army’s elite ranger school. They proved that, at least some women, can handle the same physical and mental challenges that men have been dealing with as rangers for decades. However, unlike the male graduates, the female soldiers could not apply for combat roles in the 75th Ranger Regiment.

That changed in early December, when Defense Secretary Carter made the historic announcement that all roles in all military branches will now be open to women.

The announcement was not met with support across the board, by some in both the civilian population and by some already in the armed forces. Many called into question the physical abilities of females, pointing out that women are held to a lower physical fitness standard, and even going so far as to allege that females in certain combat positions would serve as distractions to their male colleagues.

These arguments are absolutely reflective of the inherent misogyny in American society and the gender stereotypes to which many still cling to. Of course, standards should not be lowered to let women into special forces. Let all the men and women going for those roles succeed or fail based on skill. If men cannot control themselves around female counterparts, that is their fault, not the fault of women.

The pushback is unfortunate, but the opposition will not change the course of the announcement. Despite requests for some positions in the Navy and Marines to still remain closed to females, if women meet the standards set to obtain those roles, they will be able to serve in them. It will not be easy, but women have proven time and again that we can overcome adversity and oppression.

Whether it’s fighting for your country, serving as a politician, acting in Hollywood, playing on professional sports teams, or even raising a family, 2015 has proven that anyone of any gender can do anything.

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 2015’s Best Feminist Moments appeared first on Law Street.

Gloria Steinem is in her eighties and is still a trailblazer for feminism.  Many know her from her work for gender equality in the 1960s and 70s, when she wrote radical articles about women’s reproductive rights, led protests, and was pegged as a leader of the feminist movement. She only recently shared the story of her amazing life in her new memoir “My Life on the Road,” which she discussed with “PBS NewsHour” this week. In the interview, she also said that young women shouldn’t listen to her.

“Here’s my advice. Do not listen to me,” she said to the interviewer. “Really… I want to support their listening to themselves.”

That is actually really great advice, and supports the idea that, as women, we should all be encouraging each other in our life choices. Young women can look to icons like Steinem for inspiration, but we do not, and should not, base our lives on hers. We each have different passions and goals.

Steinem went on to explain: “They know their own life and situations. I’m here to support that and say…Okay, you’re not more important than somebody else, but you’re not less important either.”

And that’s the very basis of feminism: everyone is equal. So why, over 40 years after Gloria Steinem got her start as a journalist, are we still fighting the same battle?

Steinem was thought of as “radical” in the 60s for her views on contraception and reproductive rights, on women having to choose between a family and a career, and on the widely-accepted and normalized misogyny of American society (she was, after all, the woman who went undercover as a Playboy Bunny). Now it is almost 2016, and we are still in the midst of the same battles. Reproductive rights are a hot-button item on the campaign trails of political candidates, women who want children aren’t given the necessary leave to maintain a healthy family in addition to a career, and that misogyny still runs deep–evidenced by the fact that men like Donald Trump have large followings of people who actually respect their oppressive viewpoints.

Why is it, that over 40  years after Gloria Steinem began spearheading the fight for women’s rights, those rights are denied again and again, often at the hand of conservative America? To quote another well-known feminist, Senator Elizabeth Warren: “Do you have any idea what year it is? Did you fall down, hit your head, and think you woke up in the 1950s? Or the 1890s?”

Yes, women can wear pants without being reprimanded and we can vote, but in so many other things, true equality across all genders and races, is still unrealized.

But we should not take up Gloria Steinem’s torch. No, she is still carrying that proudly onward. What we can do is light new torches with her support, and with the support of each other; start new stories inspired by but not copied from women like her. Maybe in our lifetime it won’t be “women’s rights,” but simply “rights.”

Watch the full PBS NewsHour interview below:

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 Feminist Icon Gloria Steinem Tells Young Women: “Do Not Listen To Me” appeared first on Law Street.

A whole lot of bullshit happened this week, from a subset of Christians becoming outraged about the new, plainer, less-Christmasy Starbucks holiday cup, to finding out Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson doesn’t think the pyramids were used as royal burial grounds.

Seriously, who is supporting that guy?

But let’s talk about Ariana Grande for a second. Yes, the Ariana Grande who faced some legal trouble after licking those doughnuts.

At least she apologized? But anyway, there are many better things about the actress/singer to focus on.

For example, her recent interview at Power 106 FM, where, toward the end of a roughly twenty minute-long talk, the DJs asked her what she would choose between giving up her phone and giving up make-up.

She, rightfully, questioned the motives behind the question, and the DJs responded with sexist stereotyping and disbelief that a girl could go without her cell phone for hours. The sexist comments continued through talking about emojis, because apparently a unicorn can’t be unisex. Finally, when asked about what she would change in the world, she dropped this on them:

I have a long list of things I’d like to change. I think, judgement in general; intolerance, meanness, double standards, misogyny, racism, sexism. You know, all that shit. There’s lots we’ve got to get started on…We’ll start with you, though.

Feminists everywhere agree, Ms. Grande.

But even though the topics covered in their conversation were somewhat trivial, and Ariana’s message of equality was friendly and absolutely justified in this context, the response from social media was overwhelmingly negative. Many referenced her doughnut-licking fiasco as a reason not to take her seriously, and still others knocked her for what she wears onstage and in music videos, going so far as to suggest that she deserves such sexist degradation because of her persona.

No.

Ariana Grande, along with several other female celebrities who don’t dress according to what society thinks is “appropriate,” has long stood for equality and loving yourself the way you are. Take her recent reaction to someone comparing her to Modern Family‘s Ariel Winter:

here we go again…. Sure I’m not the only 1 feeling this way today!! in case you need a reminder, you’re beautiful pic.twitter.com/OPQIgzroEI

— Ariana Grande (@ArianaGrande) November 2, 2015

So just because you don’t like the music she creates, or you disagree with something she has done in the past, does that really justify shaming her when she makes absolute sense? No. Past performance is no indication of future performance, and anyone–celebrity or non-celebrity, woman or man–is absolutely allowed to change their minds, views, or opinions. But people don’t live by that rule, which is why we run into things like Hillary Clinton’s many, many Benghazi hearings.

If a person like Ariana Grande, who you may not particularly like or respect, says something that is absolutely true, your opinion of her should not devalue her message. Sexism, whenever it appears, should always be questioned and shut down.

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 Ariana Grande is a Doughnut Licker, and a Feminist appeared first on Law Street.

Let me preface this by saying I have nothing against people of the Christian faith. In fact, I know many truly decent, open-minded human beings who practice Christianity. What I do have a problem with is that subset of Christianity that uses religion as an excuse to encourage acts that violate basic human rights.

Take, for example, a writer for the website Biblical Gender Roles who goes by the name Larry Solomon (not his real name). In previous posts, he has said there is “no such thing” as marital rape because if a wife refuses sex with her husband it is “a disrespectful and unloving response… and there is no sin in you trying to initiate sex with your wife.”

He goes on to encourage husbands to have sex with their wives anyway, even if she flat-out refuses or does so “begrudgingly.”

Of course, he acknowledges that marital rape is not as pleasurable as consensual sex, and since the author wants the husbands to enjoy themselves anyway, he advises them to “focus your eyes on her body, not her face. Focus on the visual pleasure you receive from looking at her body and physical pleasure you receive from being inside your wife.”

Solomon explains that women just don’t want sex as much as men do, that sex is the primary way husbands feel close to their wives, and that if a wife denies her husband sex she is opening them both up to “temptation.” I assume what he means by “temptation” is extramarital sexual relations. So, he tells his readers, if your wife agrees to “fake it,” has sex begrudgingly, or just refuses, have sex with her anyway and ignore her face, because she’s probably giving you a look of betrayal.

What’s scary is that Larry Solomon, or whatever his real name is, isn’t the only person who thinks this way. He isn’t the only person who thinks that men have a God-given right of control over their wives or significant others. Somehow, it becomes the woman’s fault for not being “in the mood”; somehow it is her fault if her husband seeks companionship outside of their marriage. For example, the Duggar family came under fire recently because the oldest son had more than one sexual scandal in one year (if you need a refresher: it was revealed that he has previously molested two of his sisters AND had an Ashley Madison account while married). In response, the mother, Michelle, took to her blog to implore women to meet their husbands’ sexual needs even if they’re tired after a long day or “exhausted and pregnant.” She says that if you’re there for his physical needs, he’ll be there for your needs. So, essentially, fake it when you’re not in the mood for the health of your relationship.

Ladies, that’s bullshit. Marriage takes work, that is no secret. If one night you don’t feel like having sex, or your husband doesn’t feel like having sex, you don’t do it. Unless both parties agree to it, it’s not consensual, even in a marriage. If you’re refusing sex because of a deeper issue, such as a lack of communication or unresolved argument, clearly things need to be worked out emotionally before you and your significant other can get physical again and have it be pleasurable for BOTH of you. There is such a thing as marital rape, and there is no shame in saying “no.”

Marital rape is illegal in the U.S., but in several states, there is still language being used that allows spousal rape to go unpunished. According to the research in this Daily Beast article, a person can be legally drugged and sexually assaulted in some states if the perpetrator is the victim’s spouse. The existence of these caveats only adds to the rape culture already running rampant in the United States. To stop it, we have to keep sending out the message that “No Means No,” even in a marriage.

Learn More: Marital Rape in the U.S.: What are the Laws?

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 #INeedFeminism Because Sites Like “Biblical Gender Roles” Exist appeared first on Law Street.

Halloween is right around the corner, so it’s time for an annual public service announcement: women’s Halloween costumes are incredibly sexist. The costumes hanging in the aisles of Party City reflect a set of stereotypes that women are sorted into without their consent. Unfortunately, categorizing women in narrow and reductive terms doesn’t end at midnight on October 31st–it is a reality of gender inequality in the workforce year-round.

Consider just how many Halloween costumes reflect prejudices women face on the job every day: women who are focused on their work and don’t “let loose” are ice queens, women who are aggressive when pursuing their tasks are ball busters, and women who demand respect in the workplace are witches. A man with these same patterns of behavior is considered a leader with the potential to succeed in the corporate hierarchy. A man with this behavior is never reduced into any stereotype that can be recreated with polyester and tin foil for trick-or-treating. If there is a Halloween costume that mocks being a hard working male in the corporate environment, I have yet to find it–but a single Google search turns up two dozen different sexy secretary costumes and many a college campus this Halloween will host a “CEOs and Office Hoes” themed party. There are dozens of Halloween costumes that will send feminists reeling from their local shopping centers this October, but perhaps the most offensive is dressing as a “sexy businesswoman.”

A majority of mass-produced Halloween costumes are offensive, but these are truly disturbing because they reveal latent prejudices within our national mentality. In 2015, when there are two female candidates for President of the United States, when there have been positive strides to close the wage gap, when women are feeling more optimistic about their futures in the workplace–being a competent, gainfully employed woman is still a costume? For most women, dressing up to go to work is the way they support themselves and their families, not a fun fashion statement for a party.  Halloween is supposed to be an escape from reality that lets us celebrate kooky, amusing characters–being a woman in the workforce should never be considered “amusing.” Women should feel beautiful, confident and empowered when they get dressed for work. When we turn workplace attire into a costume, we take that power away from women, making them feel like they are dressing up as clowns instead of competent workers. In a work environment where women are constantly ignored, belittled and even threatened, they should at the very least feel comfortable in their own clothes.

Beginning in 2011 at Ohio University, the phrase “we’re a culture, not a costume” has been utilized to protest racist Halloween costumes that trivialize the cultures of African-Americans, Native Americans, and Mexicans, as well as others. The campaign caught on relatively quickly and a call to reform Halloween costumes was taken up by a variety of media outlets—including Buzzfeed, which recently produced a set of videos illustrating how offensive these costumes can be. In keeping with the historic tradition of intersectionality between racial equality campaigns and women’s equality movements, this Halloween, I think that the campaign could be extended further–“we’re 50 percent of the population, not a costume”.

Ask a child in your family why Halloween is fun. There’s the candy, getting to stay up late, getting to play games at school–but above all, it is the costume that makes the day special. As we reach our teens and twenties, Halloween becomes more sexualized and wild but we should never forget that Halloween is ultimately a holiday for children. If you teach a little girl that dressing up in business casual is just as ludicrous as dressing up as a fairy princess, what are you teaching her about the opportunities waiting for her in the world?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Employed Women Are Not Halloween Costumes appeared first on Law Street.

It’s that time again.

The TV tells me so with endless ads, and my dreams tell me so with the dreams I’ve had almost every August since I was 6, like my subconscious is whispering it like it thinks it’s auditioning for a horror movie: backtoschool, backtoschool, backtoschooooollll.

And even though my syllabus is done (well, mostly done), my new hire paperwork is in (finally), and I’m pretty sure my bank account won’t empty out completely before I get paid again (grad schools think we don’t pay rent in the summer), I agree with grumpy Twitter users and Leonardo DiCaprio:

"Are you ready for back to school sales?" #BackToSchool pic.twitter.com/hvrxaYqeNG

— CHILDHOOD RUINER (@SongsPost) August 10, 2015

Still, though, I am ready for John Oliver’s take on #backtoschool prep. With the help of Laverne Cox and Nick Offerman, he just released a comical (but oh, too true) sex ed PSA.

And even though most people are rightly focusing on the actual content of the PSA–which Mic sums up in a great series of stills–I’d like to have a moment of online silence for the couple of seconds in his intro when Oliver cracks himself up making fun of kids teetering on the edge of puberty (he tries to get over it from 0:55-0:59). Watching him amuse himself is funnier, for me, than the joke itself, which I would have left out of the damn thing: shouldn’t body positivity go along with any sexual education proclaiming itself to be liberal? If the kid is proud of what his body is doing, let him be proud.

But, if you want to critique where he gets the idea that he should be so proud of a mustache (hello, damaging conceptions of “manhood” that lead to the very rapey sex that the PSA generally tries to address), that’s fine, too: go for it. But shouldn’t a critique of the dominance of masculinity (which Oliver could have gone into with the kid being “way too proud” of his “ghost mustache”) be more incisive than a punchline?

Yes, maybe. But then, everything’s a punchline here (which always, of course, has its goods and its bads). Some (but not all) of the bads: the video is presented as being about “teen birth control decisions.” When I was a teenager, I just turned off (pun?) when people would try to talk about that. A cis woman who was dating another cis woman (and, largely because we were teenagers, thought we’d never want to have sex with anyone else), I wasn’t worried about birth control. At the time, I didn’t think I would ever have to be. So I didn’t pay attention to any sex ed. Because it was super heteronormative. Like Oliver’s video. *facepalm*

So even while we’re watching, and even while we’re getting a lot of things right, we–and by we, here, I mean Oliver’s video–always have to seek to improve where we can. Even and especially through the “everything’s a punchline” mentality.

Some of the goods, though:

From “this is a vagina” (*GIGGLE*) to “and this is a butt,” (*GRAVE STARE*), the PSA says it is addressing itself to teenagers who are going to make a ‘hugely important’ decision: “no decision is probably more important than the one you’ll make about becoming sexually active.” And it does so by making us…laugh.

Which is useful, actually. Because it can diminish nerves and it can take away skittishness. It allows us to laugh about sex while firmly telling us, “no, no, violating someone’s consent is not something to laugh about.” (Best line award goes to Laverne Cox: “This is actually pretty simple: if someone doesn’t want to have sex with you, don’t have sex with them.”)

When we can laugh, we can ask better questions. And our students can ask better questions.

If the laughter isn’t at someone’s expense (like the Ancient Egyptians joke in the PSA. JOHN OLIVER STOP IT RACIST MICROAGGRESSIONS ARE NOT OKAY AND ARE NOT FUNNY), it can level a bit of the power playing field between teacher and student: with laughter easily flowing, it’s harder for teachers to present ourselves as “authorities” of sex. Which we’re not. Instead, we’re more like peers of students, who–like teenagers–have a variety of sexual and sexuality-related experiences. It’s a good thing if we don’t pretend we’re authorities of sex. Because let’s not pretend we all have had all the sexual experiences ever. Or even all the sexual knowledge ever. Because we don’t. Because we don’t all even get the idea that it’s probably best not to rape someone.

Adults need sex ed, too. Everyone is always learning.

And maybe the whole laughter thing can help us get there, just a little bit.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sex Ed: Now Featuring John Oliver appeared first on Law Street.

The 2015 women’s World Cup final brought in millions more viewers in the U.S. than the 2014 men’s final. As the most watched soccer game in U.S. history, the final has spurred quite a lot of thinking about the lack of relative women’s participation in professional U.S. sports more broadly.

We know that men receive more athletic scholarships for college than women; the percentage of women coaches of men’s sports is tiny, and the percentage of women coaches for women’s sports is dropping as pay for coaches increases; and sports media devote precious little, if any, time to women in sports.

All of these forms of discrimination contribute to fewer women having access to playing sports professionally.

But are there actual, legal barriers to women as players participating in male-dominated professional sports? From the NCAA to the NFL, the answer is technically no.

NCAA and Title IX

Originally signed into law as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX is often the piece of legislation that athletes who are women cite as their legal protection in the arena of college sports. Title IX states that,

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Because most colleges and universities cannot function without continuing to receive Federal financial assistance of one kind or another, this legal provision is the means through which many women athletes have attempted to secure their rights to play in intercollegiate sports. Actually playing on a team is not the only aspect of college life Title IX is supposed to regulate, however. More expansive than this, Title IX:

Forbids sex discrimination in all university student services and academic programs including, but not limited to, admissions, financial aid, academic advising, housing, athletics, recreational services, college residential life programs, health services, counseling and psychological services, Registrar’s office, classroom assignments, grading and discipline. Title IX also forbids discrimination because of sex in employment and recruitment consideration or selection, whether full time or part time, under any education program or activity operated by an institution receiving or benefiting from federal financial assistance.

However, because legal standards in the United States require that the court proves individual and/or institutional intent to discriminate in order to prove discrimination, the NCAA’s standards for complying with Title IX–requiring, according to the NCAA’s interpretation, “that men and women be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports”–is not likely to actually make the systematic changes women need in sports across the country. “Providing equitable opportunities” still allows women’s sports to receive much less than half of college funds for athletics, and it also still leaves athletes who are women vulnerable to more discrete forms of discrimination.

A good case study of these forms of discrimination is the case of Heather Sue Mercer, who in 1997 filed suit against Duke University under Title IX because she was cut from the football team for being a woman and, while she was still on the team, was treated much differently than her male teammates. Even though she was eventually awarded $2 million in damages, the standard for awarding damages (determining malice) is much lower than the standard for determining whether Duke violated Title IX (deliberate indifference, or the intent to discriminate, which Duke was found not to have).

The interpretations of Title IX in intercollegiate athletics that arose from this case have had long-lasting impacts on women trying to break into intercollegiate sports. The court ruled that colleges are not required to allow women to play on “men’s” contact sports teams, leaving decisions about women having access to sports in coaches’ hands. This leaves the door wide open for coaches to make statements like Goldsmith’s, citing arbitrary reasons like size that didn’t seem to impact Mercer’s ability to play just as well as — and better than — others on her team when she was invited to join it in the first place.

And what about the pros?

Though Title IX by default does not directly affect professional sports–by definition, it only impacts institutions that receive federal funding–athletes attempting to make it into the big leagues find themselves strongly disadvantaged by the legacies of Title IX. Women do not only face discrimination on athletic fields that negatively impact their access to playing in the pros, but women’s pro leagues also experience extreme financial hardships that male leagues simply do not face. This acts as a strong barrier to all women, but especially to women who, for example, have a great deal of debt from college because they did not receive the same kind of scholarships that they would have if they were men. Because of the economic impacts of sports-based (and other) discrimination, women–especially women of color–are more likely to lack the resources needed to stick it through playing in underfunded women’s pro leagues.

The lack of ability for women to get professional opportunities and exposure is largely dependent on economic and media biases, as described by Shira Springer of The Boston Globe:

Absent deep-pocketed investors who can commit for several years, women’s professional teams and leagues find themselves scrambling to survive almost from the moment they launch. With the notable exception of the National Basketball Association-supported WNBA, women’s pro leagues never get a chance to play the kind of long game that could build momentum and diverse fan bases. ‘Women’s sports are still sort of niche sports,’ says Angela Ruggiero, president of the Women’s Sports Foundation based in New York City and a four-time Olympic medalist in women’s ice hockey. ‘Part of it is visibility. Because most women’s sports don’t get the same coverage compared to men, it’s not the same fan experience, and it’s much harder to get invested. Part of it is that sports fans are still trying to understand and appreciate women’s sports and female athletes.’

Partly because of this, many athletes who are women aspire to play in the “big leagues” that everyone is almost guaranteed to know about: the MLB, the NBA, the NFL.

Football–due to its emphasis on extreme contact–is often the sport that people react most strongly against women participating in. Many people simply do not believe that a woman could excel in the NFL (or football in general), except perhaps as a kicker.

But are there any regulations–legal or league-based–that actually prevent women from playing in professional “male” sports, even the NBA and NFL? The answer, it seems, is no.

In 2012, the NFL finally made it clear that there are no provisions, legal or otherwise, that would prohibit women from participating in the NFL. Soon after, in 2013, New Yorker and superb kicker Lauren Silberman competed at the NFL’s New Jersey regional combine. While she did not make the cut onto a team, Silberman told NFL.com before the combine that,

I was not aware that I was the first female registrant. I was actually hoping that the 2012 historical milestone rule, to allow women to play, would prompt more women to attend tryouts this year. But for me, what’s important is to finally have a chance to fulfill my dreams by trying out to play in the world’s most competitive football league.

Silberman’s dream was stymied, but like Silberman, the dreams of many women to play in professional sports–like Melissa Mayeux, the first woman eligible to be signed in the MLB from the international registration list–are still moving forward despite the obstacles.

So when will women be in the dominant pro leagues?

While athletes who are women are legally entitled to the equitable access to intercollegiate athletics, the reality is that most women, regardless of ability, do not have access to the same types of opportunities or benefits that athletes who are men have. Similarly, women are not barred by any regulation from participating in pro “male” sports, including high-contact leagues like the NFL; however, even as athletes like Silberman and Mayeux push boundaries in the big leagues, there is a very, very long way to go for women who dream of playing in those arenas.

Resources

NFL.com: Female Will Compete at Regional Combine For First Time

Boston Globe: Why Do Fans Ignore Women’s Pro Sports?

LexisNexis Legal Newsroom: Gender Participation Issues Related to Sports

NCAA: Title IX Frequently Asked Questions

AthNet: Title IX and Its Effects on Intercollegiate Athletics

ESPN W: Five Myths about Title IX

Women’s Sports Foundation: Title IX Myths and Facts

Life and Times: The Impact of Title IX on Women’s Sports

U.S. News & World Report: 40 Years After Title IX, Men Still Get Better Sports Opportunities

NFL: Women Will Compete at Regional Combine For First Time

Weekly World News: NFL to Allow Women to Play

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women in the Big Leagues: Can They Legally Play on “Men’s” Teams? appeared first on Law Street.

Oh, I would love it if the way that people are talking about 16-year-old Melissa Mayeux–an excellent French shortstop (and the first woman to be added to the MLB’s international registration list, which makes her technically eligible to be signed this week)–is how we would talk about men.

Take Yankees outfielder Garrett Jones. How ‘ridiculous’ would it be if I took his ‘supportive’ comments about Mayeux and made them about men? Let’s find out, shall we? (Brackets are where I’ve switched pronouns and other such gender-y words.)

I watched the video of [him] taking ground balls and hitting, and [he] looked really good for being 16… [He] looked good for a 16-year-old [girl]. I’m for it. If a [boy] can play up to the level and compete with [gals], I’m all for it. If [he] can compete and help the team win, why not? It’s pretty cool that [boys] are playing baseball. I didn’t know they had that in other countries, like France. So, why not? If a [boy] can compete with the [gals] and play, why not let [him] play?

Hahaha, funny, right–isn’t it so odd to talk about how surprising it is that boys might be as good as girls at something? But it is not ridiculous–it is, in fact, considered complimentary–when we talk about girls that way. When we’re shocked that girls and women are–not can be, but are–as good as men at sports. Or maybe–gasp!–even better?

Keep your compliments to yourselves, boys. I don’t want to hear that I can play if I’m as good as you. (I already know I’m better.)

And just for clarity there, Jones: were you unclear as to whether people in general play baseball in France? Or that girls are allowed to play?

Probably the second one, because you seem surprised that girls play baseball at all (though I suppose you’re right: it is “pretty cool”).

But I suppose maybe it’s not fair for me to take Jones as a proverbial straw man: he was, after all, trying to be supportive, and anyway, the problem is not limited to him.

There’s a problem in the way that most male-dominated sports-casting is discussing Mayeux: in sporting industries where women must automatically be on the defensive regarding whether or not we are “as good as” men, we are bound to get sexist reporting and commentary that is trying very hard to sound non-sexist.

Except it’s failing. Because it is evidence of a sexist industry when supportive people are referring to Mayeux as a “legitimate” shortstop (would we question a man’s legitimacy in his position?)

It is evidence of a misogynist industry when MLB Director of International Game Development Mike McClellan comments on Mayeux smoking a 91 mile-per-hour fastball that she “looked good doing it.”

It is evidence of a misogynist industry when articles rush to assure readers that Mayeux is not interested in–or (unrealistically unlikely) even aware of–breaking down gender barriers.

If she were an outspoken advocate for her right as a woman to enter the MLB, would she be considered a less “legitimate” shortstop?

In the male-dominated gaze of pro sports? Probably, yeah.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Play Ball Like a Girl! appeared first on Law Street.

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, self-described Democratic Socialist, is a 73-year-old senator from Vermont, the longest serving independent in Congressional history, and a Presidential candidate. He’s been described as “one of the few elected officials who is fundamentally devoted to dealing with the plight of poor and working people” and he’s gaining ground in the polls on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders polled within 8 percentage points of Clinton in New Hampshire last week, a pretty big deal since the New Hampshire primary comes first in the series of nationwide party primary elections. From social justice and climate change to trade agreements and health care, Bernie’s got some all-inclusive views that I can definitely get on board with. Here are 10 reasons why you’ll want to #FeelTheBern in 2016.

1. #SocialistBern: Bernie wants to provide a free college education for everyone.

Rather than cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, Bernie wants to cut military spending and put that money towards education. That means that public colleges and universities in the country would be tuition-free.

 Say goodbye to college debt with #TheBern.

2. #ProgressiveBern: He wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Disposable income FTW.

3. #CivilRightsBern: He marched with MLK.

Bernie Sanders is one of two sitting senators to have attended the March on Washington in 1963 to hear MLK’s I Have A Dream Speech.

If only The Bern could still move like this…

4. #HappyBern: He’s never run a negative advertisement in over 30 years.

He has stated, “I’ve never run a negative political ad in my life…I believe in serious debates on serious issues.”

 He who hath not bitched on my TV hath mine vote.

5. #DemocracyBern: He wants to make Election Day a national holiday.

“In America, we should be celebrating our democracy and doing everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process. Election Day should be a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy.”

Get ready for your new favorite holiday.

6. #FlowerBern: Bernie loves the environment.

The Bern serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he’s focused on global warming. He introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies that immorally get huge tax breaks.

Peace, Love, and Bernie Sanders for President.

7. #PeacefulBern: He opposed entering the war in Iraq.

No further commentary needed.

8. #99PercentBern: He wants to reform the campaign finance system that allows “billionaires” to “buy elections and candidates.”

GOP better take its money and run.

9. #EqualityBern: He’s a feminist.

Bernie believes birth control should be provided through all health care plans. He’s also stated that all women who rely on the military healthcare system should have access to contraception coverage and family planning counseling.

Finally, a man who speaks to my uterus’s needs.

10. #TheRealBern: He released a folk album.

In 1987, as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, The Bern recorded a folk album.

He’s a cool Mayor.

Feel the Bern in 2016…

And move it like Bernie to the Democratic Primaries…

So we can #BernTheHouseDown.

Jennie Burger also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ten Reasons to #FeelTheBern This Election Season appeared first on Law Street.

People cite it all the time: women make 77 cents to every dollar men make. We use it as a linchpin in arguments about equal pay, feminism, glass ceilings. We offer it up as proof–because mind-bogglingly, we still need to “prove it”–that feminism is a necessary thing.

But the whole 77 cent thing? Not actually true.

Because that statistic is assuming that the default status is whiteness. But really, Black women make 64 cents to every white man’s dollar. Latina women, 53 cents. Native American women, 60 cents. Similarly, women with dis/abilities (race wasn’t specified, as far as I could find) make 67 cents to men without dis/abilities’ dollar, and 87 cents to what men with dis/abilities earn. Queer women? Especially queer and trans women of color? Similar story.

But even that, even complicating the wage gap narrative we offer as “concrete proof” that sexism is, you know, a thing, is not enough. Because sexism at work manifests in way, way more than just pay differentials. It’s more than straight-up (pun intended) discrimination.

Workplace culture is a massive part of the misogyny of the job market (in so many more ways than I have space to discuss here). As Anne-Marie Slaughter, president of the New America Foundation, wrote in 2012 for The Atlantic:

The culture of “time macho”—a relentless competition to work harder, stay later, pull more all-nighters, travel around the world and bill the extra hours that the international date line affords you—remains astonishingly prevalent among professionals today. Nothing captures the belief that more time equals more value better than the cult of billable hours afflicting large law firms across the country and providing exactly the wrong incentives for employees who hope to integrate work and family.

But let’s even put aside “family” for a moment–because some women wanting (or needing) time with their families (implication: their kids) isn’t the only reason that “time macho,” as Slaughter calls it, is a misogynist expectation.

“Time macho” is misogynist because it places value on a kind of masculinized “endurance” that is simply unhealthy: the burden of being first in the office in the morning and last to leave at night disproportionately falls on women of color, queer women, women with dis/abilities (and combinations thereof) because we have more to “prove” in this society.

“Time macho” is misogynist because it defines “production” as the primary value while feminizing self-care as weak, as less “tough,” as less competitive. It places short term over long term, and it promotes disdain for those of us who try to take care of ourselves.

“Time macho” is misogynist because it is yet another way that women are not permitted to say “no” without consequences: the rape culture of the working world, “time macho” creates workplace cultures in which women have to say yes to the extra night shift, to the additional project, to the seven-day work weeks in unhealthy and unsafe environments, to the 10:00 PM conference call.

Because if we don’t, we know there are plenty of men (or other token women) waiting in the wings to get paid more than we get paid to do the same thing we do; plenty of men (and women, because we get sucked into this, too) waiting to give us less-than-stellar recommendations about us being “not a great fit” in the office, being “disagreeable” or “confrontational” because no, nope, actually, my health is more important than your misogynist expectations.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Time Macho” is the Rape Culture of the Workplace appeared first on Law Street.

In 2006, the criminal justice system helped Josh Duggar’s family expunge his record of abuse and protected him from being exposed in media reports as someone who had “forcibly fondled” younger girls (a.k.a. molested children).

Every day–then, now–the criminal justice system targets people of color–especially women and trans people of color–for abuse and shootings (a.k.a. public executions for walking while Black or Latina).

And yet.

And yet we continue to use pictures of him in suits instead of finding pictures that try to reflect him negatively (see featured photo), like the mainstream media insists on doing with young people of color slaughtered by cops.

When Black young men are murdered by cops, they are cast as “thugs.” When a young white man is accused of child abuse, he retains his status as ‘poor cult victim.’

This serves both racist and misogynist ends: white perpetrators remain victims, and his misogyny is cast as an exception (caused by his cultish family).

The mainstream media likes to speculate on the “scandalous” aspects of how the family helped cover up the abuse; how the family, in fact, abused him through their extremism and his isolation from “mainstream culture”; but we don’t like to speculate on how Josh Duggar is not, in fact, an exception. Josh Duggar is the rule.

Duggar is an embodiment of rich white cis male non-dis/abled privilege, and while the control his family exerts over him is indeed frightening, their misogyny is not an exception.

The Duggars may be particularly explicit in the ways they preach and practice misogyny, but what pieces focusing on the cultish aspects of the Duggars that facilitated the abuse miss is that every person in this country–every. single. person.–is raised to hate women. The Duggars may be more explicit than most, but they are not alone: Josh Duggar’s apparent belief that women and girls exist for male pleasure is the same belief that we are all raised with.

It’s called rape culture, and it’s everywhere.

The fact that the Duggars isolated their children so much that they didn’t have a TV misses the point: all of us with TV, too, receive the same message–in a heteropatriarchal society like this one, women are disposable.

Because rape culture is not isolated to “cults.” It is everywhere.

Because women–especially women of color–are disproportionately targeted by the same criminal justice system that protected Duggar when the first police report was issued against him.

Because living in a heteropatriarchal society makes us much more vulnerable to debilitating mental health issues.

Because “strong women” in the mainstream media is still the only trope we’re allowed to hope for.

Because the kind of misogyny that the media ascribes to the cult of the Duggars is the same kind of misogyny that we are exposed to every single time we turn on the television, interact with men in the street, or are educated in a public school system that still focuses on “great” [read: genocidal] white men and does not teach consent as the golden rule in health classes (a.k.a. teach rape culture to all students).

Because we can condemn–or pity–Josh Duggar as much as we’d like.

But ultimately, we must recognize that his privileged positions and entitled, abusive actions are the rule, not the exception.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Josh Duggar is Not an Exception: On Rape Culture in the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Crowd-sourced mobile taxi service Uber has developed a bit of a reputation for having a sexist “bro culture.” A new announcement this morning from the company reveals it’s trying to change that. Uber announced it will be partnering with UN Women “with the goal of accelerating economic opportunity for women.” As part of that commitment, it has pledged to create 1,000,000 jobs for women drivers by 2020. That sounds good, but is this sudden explosion of growth really proof that the company is becoming more female friendly?

A good example of how Uber has gotten a sexist rep is the feud between the company and Sarah Lacy, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of tech website PandoDaily. In October, Uber’s French office unveiled a sexist promotion with an app called “Avions de Chasse” that pairs Uber riders with “hot chick” drivers. Lacy responded with an oped piece on her site criticizing the company’s “Asshole culture,” writing that she deleted the app. She stated she was shocked that this company valued at $18 million “celebrated treating women who may choose to drive cars to make extra money like hookers.”

That’s when Uber execs apparently retaliated in maybe the worst way possible. They hired spies. Yup, spies. Spies who allegedly attempted to dig up information on Lacy to discredit her. While nothing ever real came of it, there was a lot of public outcry against Uber.

USA Today reported that Emil Michael, senior vice president of the business, allegedly said at a dinner party that the company spends $1 million to conduct “oppo research” on journalists. That means digging for any information Uber can manipulate in order to discredit its journalist critics. After public backlash the company made its apologies on Twitter and dropped the promotion.

The controversy with Lacy wasn’t the only anti-female press for Uber. Uber founder Travis Kalanick was quoted referring to his company as “Boob-er” because of all the ladies he pulls due to its success. With comments like that it’s no wonder the company’s headquarters have been deemed a boyish clubhouse.

It only got worse for Uber in December when it was banned from New Delhi, India after a male Uber driver was accused of sexually assaulting a female passenger. Unfortunately, that’s not the only case of alleged Uber sexual assault. In Boston, an Uber driver was charged with sexual assault after inappropriately touching a female passenger while dropping her off in the North End neighborhood. With that in mind, hiring more female drivers could make female passengers feel safer while using the service. In NYC, the app SheRides has already created a business model based on the concept, with an all female fleet that it claims is tailored to the needs of women.

Currently women make up only about 14 percent of Uber’s 160,000 drivers in the U.S., according to the The Huffington Post. This new female hiring initiative would increase Uber’s driving force by more than seven times its current total. Its clear that Uber realizes that referring to itself as “Boob-er” and hiring spies to stalk female journalists wasn’t the best idea. This hiring initiative, however, is a good first step of many that Uber will need to take in order to rid itself of its negative “bro culture” rep.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber’s New Hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back the Women appeared first on Law Street.

Every year on March 8, organizations and individuals recognize what is known as International Women’s Day, during which thousands of celebrations take place across the world, recognizing all that women have achieved socially, economically, and politically. What started in 1911 in only three European countries has since grown into a global call for gender equality–and yet a better question for my title might be: Have You Heard of International Women’s Day? And if you have, did you contribute or did you let it pass by? The good news is, it is never too late to celebrate womankind.

As all good celebrations do, IWD always has a theme. This year’s was “Make It Happen,” focusing on the fight for women’s rights in every country. It acknowledges that in every aspect of a country’s social, economic, and political platforms: women matter. Equal rights for every gender, for every sexual orientation, and for every race, are long overdue.‪ International Women’s Day is not just for women, it is for everyone.

Marches for gender equality took place in New York City, London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Mexico City, and in countries like Nepal, India, Morocco, Nicaragua, Turkey, the Philippines, China, and Indonesia. Events ranged from “Ladies Nights Out” to award ceremonies for women who have gone above and beyond. Millions took to social media with hashtags like #InternationalWomensDay, #MakeItHappen, and #PaintItPurple.

HAPPY #INTERNATIONALWOMENSDAY YOU QUEENS Read: http://t.co/r13WiwS0t5

— camEEla cabeYo (@camilacabello97) March 8, 2015

You just got to remind yourself that you’re brave, you’re honest & you’re beautiful Happy #InternationalWomensDay pic.twitter.com/Am3tLocmrU

— Fifth Harmony (@FifthHarmony) March 9, 2015

Surprise:The U.S. Is one of 9 countries in the world that doesn’t provide for paid maternity leave.#NoCeilings #InternationalWomensDay

— maria menounos (@mariamenounos) March 9, 2015

“In many parts of the world, it is more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier” #InternationalWomensDay pic.twitter.com/LfyfGQEoMF

— MINA (@_MinaMurad) March 8, 2015

Happy #InternationalWomensDay everyday

It is incredibly inspiring to see so many men and women band together to make something trend on Twitter and Facebook. But International Women’s Day is just one day, and while it inspires millions to act, until we achieve equal rights every day should be Women’s Day.

And to those misogynists who are annoyed and frustrated by the love shown for women today, don’t worry! There is an International Men’s Day in November. They may be disappointed to find out, though, that the whole point of that day is to, among other things, “focus on…improving gender relations, promoting gender equality, and highlighting positive male role models.” So, in reality, both days dedicated to both genders are about gender equality. How can we celebrate?

Make. It. Happen.

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 Did You Celebrate International Women’s Day? appeared first on Law Street.

I have spent quite a bit of time on this blog focusing on women who have gone viral with their feminist actions. There have been speeches, performances, videos, and even hashtags that, within the past year, have pushed the feminist movement forward into the digital age and shed light on the huge difference between being a man and being a woman in our society. Supporters of such women should be proud of their positive influence, but of course for every feminist who dares to speak out, there are those who want to silence her.

We live in an age when news is reported instantly, where an unemployed singer can become a YouTube sensation overnight, and where we can all comment on every aspect of someone else’s life via social media. Some of those comments are positive, many more are negative.

Celebrities get hit the hardest by trolls whose goal in life is to sit at their computers all day creating drama on internet forums. And if one of those celebrities dares to speak out against a social injustice? Well, death threats are not at all uncommon, and whether they are real or simply the bluff of an angry teenager locked in their bedroom, social media has a huge impact on the lives of people in the public eye.

Washington Post writer Michelle Goldberg recently published an article about feminist writers and social media entitled “Feminist Writers Are So Besieged By Online Abuse That Some Have Begun to Retire.”

Yeah.

Apparently, sitting behind a computer screen with access to a Twitter feed gives people the right to insult how somebody looks, and even threaten people they disagree with. According to the article, many of the writers featured receive death and rape threats on a regular basis. If these threats had been made in person or even by mail, legal action could be taken, but what happens when hundreds of angry sexists with screen names like “M3ninist69” all make the same threat? What happens when whole online groups are dedicated to shooting down women? How many of those threats are real, and how would someone go about prosecuting them?

These incredibly negative and sometimes dangerous online exchanges force women who make their livings online to either a) engage extremely volatile followers by defending themselves or b) ignore them, sometimes completely withdrawing from social media. Many in the Washington Post article explain the damaging effect bodily threats and insults to their appearance have on their psyches, forcing some into therapy and others into retirement.

When you enter into a role that has a lot of public exposure, it is generally accepted that you will have people who love you and people who hate you. The sad part is, that love and that hate gets translated differently based on your gender. Men do not face death or rape threats, at least not to the scale that women do, because for some reason that sort of violence is restricted to women who dare to challenge social norms. Says Goldberg: “Women, urged to tell their stories, are being ferociously punished when they do.”

Feminists are no strangers to naysayers, and since the first wave of the movement have had to fight against the norms set by a patriarchal society. Never before, though, has feminism moved on this scale, and therefore never before has it faced so much resistance.

So how do we move forward? We challenge the naysayers, and while it is never easy to put up with verbal abuse, there will always be feminist writers to do so.

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 Social Media and Feminists: You Can’t Stop All of Us appeared first on Law Street.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been having one hell of a week. From one feminist-hero one-liner after another (totally agree, RBG, nine is just the right number of women on the bench) and admitting that she (like the rest of the rest of America) wasn’t “100 percent sober” when she nodded off at this year’s State of the Union, Notorious RBG continued to ride her own personal wave of awesomeness. Check out the slideshow below for the best legal tweets of the week dedicated to Justice Ginsburg.

[SlideDeck2 id=34411 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week: Notorious RBG Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Now that awards season is officially in full swing, it means that red carpet season is upon us as well. And as we watch the red carpet coverage there seems to be only one question that reporters are interested in asking female attendees: Who are you wearing?

This year, The Representation Project launched a campaign promoting the hashtag #AskHerMore. The idea is for red carpet reporters to ask female actors and entertainers about anything other than their appearance.

The whole reason I write here on Law Street is because I am in fact a woman who is interested in business, politics, and law (and yes I do identify as the “F-word”). But I’m a little different from most of the other Law Street ladies (and men), because I work in the fashion industry as well. While many might argue that law and fashion are like apples and oranges, my career is focused around fighting against that notion. That said, can #AskHerMore and the fashion industry exist in solidarity? Absolutely, but allow me explain why.

The main reason most attend a red carpet event is that their work is nominated or because they are being celebrated in some shape or form that evening. While reporters may want to ask first-time nominees what it feels like to be recognized, they’re not going to ask someone like Meryl Streep the same questions for the umpteenth time. Asking what they’re wearing can serve as a sort of ice-breaker for any nominee. I’m not so sure, however, that “What are you wearing?” should be the only question women or men on the red carpet are asked.

Also, the fashion and entertainment industries are both based on artistic forms of expression. You can’t really have one without the other (Ahem, best costume design award?). But you also can’t have art without politics either. In fact, the reason behind a given celebrity wearing a certain designer is strictly business. These celebs have contracts with fashion houses that require them to wear designs that are meticulously picked out and designed for a given public appearance. In turn, these designers get calls from clients the second the celeb reveals to the reporter what he or she is wearing.

That’s not to say, however, that even celebrities aren’t fed up with being asked about their appearance. Last month during the Golden Globes, several celebrities chose to pass on partaking in E! News’s “mani-cam.”

While I don’t think there’s anything wrong with reporters asking celebs what they’re wearing, the idea behind #askhermore is that it shouldn’t be the only thing they’re asking. But what else are they supposed to ask in the few seconds that they have to interview them? I’m not sure. If it were up to me, I would just get rid of E! News’ red carpet coverage altogether. It all gets covered online anyway. That way we can focus on the actual show and honoring these women for their work, while still preserving the Old Hollywood tradition or seeing celebs all dolled up in their best evening wear.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #AskHerMore But What? Feminism, Fashion, and Awards Season appeared first on Law Street.

“Women share this planet 50-50, and they are under-represented; their potential astonishingly untapped.”

So said Emma Watson, United Nations Women Goodwill Ambassador, at a press conference in Davos, Switzerland on Thursday. The young diplomat most recognized for her role in the Harry Potter franchise was speaking partly in regard to HeForShe’s new initiative, and partly to give thanks for the immense support HeForShe has received since her speech in September.

“I think it would be fair to say that my colleagues and I have been stunned by the response,” Watson said. “The HeForShe conference was watched over 11 million times, sparking 1.2 billion social media conversations, culminating in the HeForShe hashtag becoming so popular that Twitter painted it on the walls of its headquarters.”

Adding to that, Watson shared that men from “almost every country in the world” had signed on to help in HeForShe’s effort.

These are staggering numbers and encouraging statistics, but Watson went on to articulate that now is the time to act on our words of commitment. Being the masterful orator that she is, after thanking the masses who have responded to the campaign thus far, she used that gratitude to call us to action once more.

The initiative UN Women was there to launch is called IMPACT 10x10x10, which the UN describes as an effort to “engage governments, corporations and universities as instruments of change positioned within some of the communities that most need to address deficiencies in women’s empowerment and gender equality.”  Watson added that beyond “concrete commitments” to women gaining equal ground, she wanted “to hear from the human beings” within the organizations targeted:

I spoke about some of my story in September – what are your stories? Girls, who have been your mentors? Parents, did you make sure you treated your children equally?…Husbands, have you been supporting your female partner privately so that she can fulfill her dreams too?…Writers, have you challenged the language and imagery used to portray women in the media? CEOs, have you implemented the women’s empowerment principles in your own company?

These are powerful questions with undoubtedly powerful responses. How have we answered Watson’s call from September? Did we simply retweet with “#HeForShe,” or have we taken steps against the inequality we all see on a daily basis? It is not enough to simply say you support the cause. You must, in your daily actions and conversations, consciously implement your support.

Watson went on to share that many have verbally committed to HeForShe’s campaign, but have been unsure about how to proceed. “Men say they’ve signed the petition, what now? The truth is the ‘what now’ is down to you.”

Each of us has a different life and different ways in which we can impact the fight for gender equality. Any way you help, as Watson points out, “is valid” and helpful. Take a moment to think about what happens in your life on a day-to-day basis. How have you seen women degraded or discriminated against? How has the language you use been affected by a patriarchal society? Decide what you can do to change the answers to these questions. The answer is never “nothing.” That’s how you can initiate HeForShe in your life.

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 HeForShe: Emma Watson Does It Again appeared first on Law Street.

Did you watch President Obama make the Republicans cry Tuesday night?

Yeah you did! Because you’re smart and well informed and give a crap about where this nation is headed, am I right?

Obviously.

So today, instead of reacting to the SOTU—because let’s be real, you’ve read a thousand of those pieces by now already—we’re going to talk about something a little less official. A little more ridiculous. A little more—Meninist.

Yep, that’s right. Meninist is a word now. Thanks, Men.

But who is a Meninist, you ask, and what in fuck’s name is Meninism? Sadly, it’s not an adjective used to describe a person who is both a zealous believer in Leninism and also suffering from meningitis.

I love the word #meninist. It cleverly combines the painful brain inflammation of “meningitis” with the doomed zeal of “Leninist”.

— Tom Freeman (@SnoozeInBrief) January 17, 2015

We’re sorry, Tom Freeman. We like your definition a whole lot better.

Nope. In fact, Meninism is a sad little play on Feminism, because those goddamn men’s rights activists are so fucking convinced that their lives are super hard and women are out to get them.

All together now.

UGGHHH.

So basically, the Meninist movement has gone something like this, so far.

Men started tweeting at each other with a cute little Meninist hashtag. It started out as a joke (rolling my eyes so hard right now), and then morphed into an outlet where people with penises could bitch about how hard it is to be a man in the twenty-first century.

The first challenge, it seems, is spelling. #MeninistTwitter and #MenimistTwitter are used interchangeably across this little trend, which I think is probably the funniest detail about this whole thing.

Anyway! After these dick-swingers had built up something of a Twitter community, some entrepreneurial folks decided to capitalize on this jackassery and make some merch.

Courtesy of Teespring.com.

And so was born the Meninist T-shirt and hoodie combo. Douche canoes galore are modeling their swag proudly on Twitter.

Look what came in the mail #Meninism #meninist pic.twitter.com/cCJGMgDMzZ

— Evan Conway (@evandotconway) January 15, 2015

And some of them are even totally not-ironic women! Because men need equal rights too, guys. It’s just so unfair that they get to make more money than women do, spend less on their cost of living (having a vagina is expensive, yo), participate less in childrearing and other household tasks, and control the vast majority of corporate and governing bodies across the globe.

Supporting equal rights @MeninistTweet #meninist pic.twitter.com/ZBqssfyFXG

— Paige (@tubapay) January 16, 2015

So much power, so little justice.

Folks, I can’t. And apparently, neither can a lot of you! Because some wonderful feminists also took to Twitter to mock and ridicule these Meninist fuckers, because COME ON. This shit is ridiculous.

Fixed the meninist tshirt guys pic.twitter.com/JgM3LT1dUP

— Emily ReyNOlds (@rey_z) January 19, 2015

the "I'm never getting laid" starter pack: pic.twitter.com/dfQXxhfbDw

— Kuh-Reem (@WTFKAREEM) January 17, 2015

noticed a little typo in the new #meninist hoodies, so i thought i'd help out! pic.twitter.com/7E4NuEdC1b

— Inglourious Beanpole (@ladyepicenter) January 17, 2015

You folks are heroes.

But, all jokes aside, this Meninist crap is genuinely not okay, and here’s why.

A feminist is, by definition, “a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes.” Thanks for defining this baggage-laden, complicated term in such a straightforward way, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie! We love you.

So, here’s the thing. If you’re not a feminist—or, if you’re like these Meninist jerks who are actively taking a stand against feminism—that means that you don’t believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

Got that?

You’re cheering for inequality and oppression. That’s what you’re fighting for. That’s really fucking shitty, guys.

Now, to be fair, a lot of these Meninists don’t seem to be holding up signs telling women to get back in the kitchen. (Although a fair amount of them are pissed off that we don’t want to see their dicks.) They aren’t actively calling for the vag-havers to be oppressed. Instead, they’re just looking for some sympathy.

These seemingly reasonable Meninists are simply saying that equality between the sexes has already been achieved, and so feminism has become obsolete. Anyone who STILL identifies as a feminist is actually a man-hater, looking to reach beyond simple gender equality and over toward flipping the power dynamic, leaving men in the oppressed position that women used to be in before we got equal rights and all.

To those Meninists, I say, UNTRUE.

Gender equality has not been achieved. This is not a real thing.

Women are still paid less on average than their male counterparts. Women are still disproportionately at the mercy of domestic and sexual violence, which (not coincidentally) are crimes that are disproportionately committed by men. Women are still responsible for a greater share of the household and childrearing responsibilities. Women are still more likely to live in poverty, more likely to have difficulty accessing quality health care, and more likely to be single parents.

Why are all of these things happening?

In part, it’s because of shitty legislation. The Equal Rights Amendment never passed, meaning that it’s still legal to deny or abridge the legal rights of women simply because they have vaginas. There are also a shit ton of laws out there that specifically bar us from maintaining control over our own bodies or accessing the health care we need.

These are the problems that are officially on the books.

But off the books? We’re in trouble there too.

As a culture, women are almost exclusively valued as objects, not people. We’re treated like ornaments to be admired, fetus incubators to be legislated, pieces of ass to be fucked. When compared to men, women are literally paid less and raped more—and that’s because we aren’t valued as highly as men are.

So, to all the Meninists complaining about how fucking hard it is to be a man in the twenty-first century:

You’re missing the point.

Feminism isn’t about making life hard for you, and if you think it is, then you’re acting like a self-involved brat. Please wake the fuck up.

Women want to be valued and respected. We want to live in a world where social, political, and economic equality is a real thing.

And we want you to stop whining about it and get the fuck out of our way.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Misogynists Are At it Again, Now With T-Shirts! appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new weird feud in the political sphere. This time it’s between Governor Mike Huckabee–former and possibly future Republican Presidential hopeful–and people who like Beyoncé.

In his new book, Huckabee had a few things to say about Jay Z and Beyoncé’s performance at the 2014 Grammys. He stated:

My reaction: Why? Beyoncé is incredibly talented — gifted, in fact. She has an exceptional set of pipes and can actually sing. She is a terrific dancer — without the explicit moves best left for the privacy of her bedroom. Jay Z is a very shrewd businessman, but I wonder: Does it occur to him that he is arguably crossing the line from husband to pimp by exploiting his wife as a sex object?

Then, last week, Huckabee took his comments further and slammed the Obamas for letting Malia and Sasha listen to Beyoncé. In an interview about his new book, in which he calls Beyoncé’s music “mental poison,” he said:

I don’t understand how on one hand they can be such doting parents and so careful about the intake of everything – how much broccoli they eat and where they go to school and making sure they’re kind of sheltered and shielded from so many things – and yet they don’t see anything that might not be suitable for either a preteen or a teen in some of the lyrical content and choreography of Beyoncé, who has sort of a regular key to the door [of the White House].

Then, Jimmy Carter weighed in, because apparently we now listen to his take on parenting? He said that he thinks President Obama is doing a good job parenting his two daughters. The fact that he got involved in this whole controversy seems more odd than anything else.

Back to Huckabee though. Some people have pointed out that he is being a little hypocritical given his close ties to constant provocateur Ted Nugent, whose lyrics are often a bit off-color.

Jon Stewart had Huckabee on his show, and the whole Beyoncé-hating thing came up; he actually illustrated the Nugent point quite well in addition.

The clip is below, but highlights include Huckabee basically saying that Beyoncé makes girls want to grow up and get on stripper poles. And in response to the Nugent juxtaposition, Huckabee claims that the song in question wasn’t as popular as Beyoncé’s, nor as widely and publicly performed, and that it was created for adults. While it’s fair that Nugent is less of a prominent figure, to be sure, that argument seems semantical at best. Huckabee has had him on his show and promoted him. It seems tough to argue that he’s such a niche performer that we can’t compare his lyrics to Beyoncé’s. At the end, Stewart’s main point appears to be that Huckabee doesn’t like Beyoncé because she’s not part of the culture that Huckabee is used to, whereas Nugent’s values line up more clearly with Huckabee’s own. Stewart stated: “You can’t single out a corrosive culture and ignore the one that you live in because you’re used to it.”

It really does seem like a case of Huckabee severely simplifying a lot of what Beyoncé’s music is about. While she has some more risqué lyrics, many are about love, power, and feminism. No one is a perfect role model, but she’s better than most.

Also, Huckabee should watch out. The Beygency (the very real group dedicated to taking down those who don’t love Beyoncé) could come after him.

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 New Political Parties: Huckabee vs. Everyone Who Likes Beyoncé appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s be real, Pope Francis is the best thing to happen to the Catholic church in a long time. He is slowly but surely moving the antiquated system into the twenty-first century, denouncing those clergymen who live in excess, and generally showing goodwill toward everybody regardless of race, sexual orientation, political views, or economic standing. You know, the things Catholicism was originally based on.

And yes, some Catholics are not at all happy with Pope Francis’ modernization of church doctrine, especially when it comes to his views on sexuality.

One such naysayer is Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke who has made headlines before with his insults and reprimands of Pope Francis, as well as his extremely conservative political views. Pope Benedict had placed Burke in a high-level position within his administration, but once Pope Francis came along Burke ran into a lot of trouble.

In a Buzzfeed interview in October 2014, Burke discussed Pope Francis’ contemporary leadership with little-concealed hostility: “The pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other truth of the faith.”

That is true, the pope cannot just say whatever he wants based on his personal opinions, but the truth is that he hasn’t. He has opened his arms to certain groups that the Church has previously shunned, based on the fact that the Church, historically, is supposed to do just that.

But just when you think things are getting better for the Church, someone like Cardinal Burke comes along and says something like this:

The Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course. They respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church. Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.

This statement comes from an interview Cardinal Burke gave on January 5 to a website called “The New EMANgelization,” so you can see it just gets better. The subject of the interview was the “man-crisis” in the Catholic Church and the “feminization” of the men within it.

Cardinal Burke went on to say how the feminization of the Church is to blame for men who do not develop true “manliness,” and that men who are “confused” should be taught to “overcome these grievous temptations.”

According to Burke, though, luckily there is a whole new group of  “strong young men who desire to serve God as priests.” He goes on, “This is a welcome development, for there was a period of time when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns.”

Hear that women? Feminized men become sexually confused. Feminization is, according to Burke, to blame for homosexuality AND pedophilia.

Yeah…no.

Historically, women’s place in Catholicism is as the mother and the homemaker. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a mother and a homemaker, as long as it is actually your decision. The Church has a long-standing reputation for discouraging gender equality based on the idea that women are primarily sexual creatures, bent on seducing men away from faith (they blame Eve for a helluva lot). That is why we end up with several old-fashioned religious fanatics who are, in reality, just misogynists.

I could go on for a long time about the Church’s horrible treatment of women, but for now I will just say this: people like Cardinal Burke spew opinions not truly based anywhere within the Bible or Church teachings, but rather from a place of misogyny and hate. Catholicism, at its roots, is based in love and acceptance, and luckily Pope Francis seems to grasp that.

Oh, and things like “The New EMANgelization” should definitely not exist.

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 Cardinal Blames Feminization for Homosexuality and Pedophilia appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to work! OK, so if you’re like me you’ve been back to work for a week now, but it still feels like the first Monday after vacation doesn’t it? In case you weren’t into your normal routine of obsessively scrolling through the news last week, you can catch up on Law Street’s top three articles. Number one was brought to you by Marisa Mostek in her series about the dumbest laws in the United States–this time it was Utah and Nevada. The number two story was from Hannah R. Winsten who had five actionable ideas for making this your most feminist New Year yet. And the third most popular story of the week was an issue brief on hacking as a tool of war by Mike Sliwinski. ICYMI, here is the Best of the Week from Law Street.

#1 The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Utah and Nevada

Nevada is home to legal prostitution and Sin City. Yet, it is surprisingly not home to many stupid laws. However, its neighbor Utah makes up for that with a whole long list of weird laws on the books. Let’s start with Nevada. In Reno, sex toys are outlawed, and it is illegal to lie down on the sidewalk, no matter how drunk and tired you are. Read the full article here.

#2 Five Resolutions for a More Feminist New Year

Folks, the New Year is upon us. Time to break out your most bedazzled dress, pop the champagne, and party your way into 2015, am I right? Fuck yeah I am. But, while New Year’s Eve is a night of epic intoxication, huge crowds, and glittery debauchery (if you’re at the right party), it’s also notorious for being the pre-game to a little thing we all do every New Year’s Day. Resolution making. Read the full article here.

#3 Hacking: The New Kind of Warfare

Following the recent fiasco at Sony, hacking has been catapulted squarely into the spotlight. But hackers are doing more than just delaying movie premieres–they are causing serious damage and have the capability to cause much more. Before we get too scared of these anonymous boogeymen, however, it is important to understand what hacking is and who the hackers are. Read the full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, the New Year is upon us.

Time to break out your most bedazzled dress, pop the champagne, and party your way into 2015, am I right?

Fuck yeah I am.

But, while New Year’s Eve is a night of epic intoxication, huge crowds, and glittery debauchery (if you’re at the right party), it’s also notorious for being the pre-game to a little thing we all do every New Year’s Day.

Resolution making.

And this is where New Year’s turns into a giant letdown.

Because who really keeps their resolutions? Who really follows through on any of this crap? Hardly any of us. But this year, loves—this year’s going to be different.

Why, you ask? Because we’re not making resolutions that are steeped in the bullshit ways of our racist, sexist, patriarchal culture, setting unreasonable standards for ourselves that we don’t even actually want to fulfill.

Nope.

This year, we’re keeping it simple. We’re keeping it real. We’re going to do this.

So here, my dears, are five totally rad resolutions for a more feminist New Year. Happy 2015!

1. Don’t lose weight.

How many times have you woken up from your New Year’s Eve bender to solemnly swear that THIS YEAR, you’re going to get super healthy and drop all of your excess body fat and become a granite, kale-worshipping tower of flawless muscle tone?

Like, practically every year. Because we’re all constantly barraged by magazines, TV shows, movies, and commercials that feature super thin, Photoshopped millionaires looking unattainable and telling us that we’ll be our happiest selves if we can get our bodies to look the same way.

This year, forget it. Reject all the media bullshit that encourages you to hate your body. Give the middle finger to all the Photoshopped images that you can’t possibly replicate in real life because literally no one looks like that. Fuck all of that noise.

Instead, resolve to love yourself exactly the way you are, right now. Because you’re fucking fabulous, and owning that is a revolutionary act all to itself.

2. Learn to be a better ally.

We’ve seen it time and time again—well-meaning people in positions of privilege who want to support those of us who are on the outside, but who do so kind of terribly.

I’m talking about the white people who wore “I am Trayvon Martin” hoodies in 2013. I’m talking about the #CrimingWhileWhite movement that took over Twitter a few weeks ago. I’m talking about folks who encourage women not to walk alone at night, who chastise fat people while insisting that they’re only concerned about their health, who spend money with abandon and shame peers who can’t or won’t do the same.

If you have racial, gender, sexual, class, body, or any of the other myriad types of privilege you can possess—own it. Investigate it. Question it. Understand that you’re not Trayvon Martin. That you’re not a health or safety expert. That you don’t know the specifics of any person’s situation.

Instead, ask people in the community you’d like to ally with about how you can better support them. And then, resolve to sit down, really listen, and do it.

3. Follow your passion.

What makes you as happy as this panda bear?

Resolve to do more of it.

I’m not talking about the thousand things on your to-do list that you really should do. Put that list down and walk away from it. Tear it up into tiny little pieces and burn it.

Subtract all of the things that you really should do—like learn Spanish, or read more books, or do more sit-ups—until you’re left with the one thing that you are irrationally excited to do. Or the handful of things that you’re stupid happy about doing!

We all have a tendency to spread ourselves too thin—especially in a world that encourages shorter attention spans while claiming that it’s easier than ever to accomplish more.

Fuck all that noise. Every moment that you spend feeling overwhelmed and scatterbrained is a moment that you don’t get to spend fighting the good fight.

So, resolve to give yourself license to have a shitload of fun. Do more of what—or who!—you love.

4. Practice better self-care.

Are you taking care of yourself? Like, really taking care of yourself?

I’m willing to bet that more often than not, the answer to that question is no.

While you’re busy challenging yourself to love your body, become a better ally, and follow your little heart’s true desires, it’s reasonably likely that you aren’t also making time to cook healthy meals or sleep a solid eight hours. Not to mention, leaving space in your schedule to sit quietly with a good book, snuggle with your favorite people, or drink your coffee while strolling through the park.

Here’s the thing—we aren’t encouraged to take care of ourselves. We aren’t taught to stop and really appreciate our lives, ourselves, or the people who love us the most.

Instead, we’re pushed to do more, eat more, buy more, sleep less—because all of that constant energy keeps us distracted, exhausted, and unsatisfied. And who can smash the patriarchy when they’re that frazzled?

No one. So, seriously, resolve to practice better self-care this year. You’ll be amazed at how much more positive change you can affect in the world when you’re grounded and cared for.

5. Let things go.

Finally, folks, let’s just admit it. This world is rough. It’s filled with people and messages that are constantly telling us that we aren’t good enough. And it’s ridiculously easy to internalize all that shit.

Don’t. Resolve to let that fuckery roll right off your back. Because you know what? In a world filled with negativity, inequality, and brutality, it’s a beautiful act of resistance to just be at peace, or even—gasp!—genuinely happy.

So, take a lot of deep breaths and smile, lovelies. You’ve got this.

What do you think, people of the Internet? Can you keep these resolutions in 2015? Do you have some awesome resolution suggestions that I missed? Blow it up in the comments.

And in the meantime, have a happy, healthy, patriarchy-smashing New Year!

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Resolutions For a More Feminist New Year appeared first on Law Street.

There were a lot of big news stories this year, from the Olympics in early 2014 to the ongoing Sony hack. Read on to learn about the top 15 news stories of 2014.

1. The Winter Olympics: $how Me the $ochi

Image courtesy of Atos via Flickr

The 2014 Olympics were hosted in Sochi, Russia, this winter, and the entire event was marked by controversy after controversy. The Russians were chosen to host the Olympics because of an impressive, expensive bid to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). However, the chaos of the 2014 Games left many wondering whether or not cash should be the deciding factor in the selection process.

2. Malaysian Airplane Crash: Who’s Liable?

Image courtesy of abdallahh via Flickr

In March, the world watched as a Malaysian Airlines flight disappeared, and many families were left devastated. It was a horrifying tragedy, but many were wondering who was to blame for the catastrophe, or more appropriately, who was liable? Given that much is still unknown about the crash, the legal questions are far from being answered.

3. Punishing Donald Sterling Is About to Get a Lot Harder

Image courtesy of Michael via Flickr

Clippers owner Donald Sterling came under fire after an audio recording of him making racist statements came to light. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver levied a notable punishment against Donald Sterling. However, given the unprecedented level of punishment, there were significant legal concerns.

4. An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear 

Image courtesy of Red Carpet Report on Mingle Media Tv

One of the most talked about stars of 2014 was Shailene Woodley–she starred in films such as Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars. However, she also made headlines for a less flattering reason–for saying that she wasn’t a feminist. Unfortunately, she had the definition of feminism wrong.

Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality

Image courtesy of EyesonFire89 via Flickr

However, another movie starlet, Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame, gave an amazing speech this year about the importance of feminism and equality. Unlike Woodley, her definition of feminism was spot-on, and she made a great appeal.

5. SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy

Image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Flickr]

6. Trigger Warnings Creep Off the Web and Into the Classroom

Image courtesy of OpenClips via Pixabay

Trigger warnings are a common sight on websites, in order to alert readers to content they may find troubling. However, trigger warnings started to make their way off the internet and possibly onto college syllabi. That change has led to concerns that trigger warnings may end up creating optional content in college courses.

7. The Dark Side of the World Cup: Corruption, Bribery, and Civil Unrest

Image courtesy of Amil Delic via Flickr

This summer, the world watched as the 2014 World Cup took place in Brazil. But, much like the 2014 Olympic Games, the World Cup had problems with corruption, lack of organization, and bribing scandals. Not only was the World Cup an interesting look into the the politics of Brazil, but it says a lot about what may happen at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Oh, and that guy who bit another player: The People vs. Luis Suarez

Image courtesy of [George via Flickr]

8. The Senate Torture Report: Government Infighting Over Release

Image courtesy of Justin Norman via Flickr

The Senate torture report was finally released a few weeks ago, but there was a lot of infighting prior to the release. Major players included the U.S. Senate, particularly the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA, and the White House.

9. We Should All be Upset About What’s Going on in Ferguson: Here’s Why

Image courtesy of Elvert Barnes via Flickr

In early August, a young man named Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, by Officer Darren Wilson. The following weeks led to protests over a few different topics, including police militarization, racial profiling, and First Amendment issues.

10. Ebola and America’s Fears

Image courtesy of CDC Global via Flickr

This year, Ebola has killed thousands in Western Africa, particularly in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. Globalization and international travel led to a case making it to the United States, sparking fear around the nation.

11. Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration

Image courtesy of Official US Navy Page via Flickr

The U.S. has been waging war against ISIS since it emerged in Syria and Iraq. Early this fall, the U.S. and some Middle Eastern allies bombed ISIS. Like any international action, the U.S. needed to be able to legally justify their actions, but that may be easier said than done.

12. The Washington Redskins: What’s Next in the Name Debate?

Image courtesy of Keith Allison via Flickr

The Washington D.C. NFL team is called the “Redskins,” a name that has received ire for its offensive origin. Journalists have begun to refer to the team by almost any other name, and this summer the US Patent office cancelled the team’s trademark. Whether or not the name will ever be changed remains to be seen.

13. The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture

Image courtesy of takomabibelot via Flickr

That Senate Intelligence torture report was finally released, and it was a disturbing revelation into the practices of the CIA. However, despite the fact that torture is illegal internationally, it’s doubtful that the U.S. will ever see any legal ramifications.

14. Australian Hostage Situation Ends: A Community Stands Together

Image courtesy of Corey Leopold via Flickr

Earlier this month, there was a horrifying hostage situation in Sydney, Australia. But the aftermath was heartening, as Australians banded together to show the world that the actions of one mad man does not justify discrimination on a wide scale.

Australians School the World on How To Not Be Racist

Image courtesy of Chris Beckett via Flickr

Here’s a further look into the amazing Australian compassion after the Sydney hostage situation. The hashtag #IllRideWithYou was created, in order to provide support for the Australian Muslim community. Citizens of Sydney offered company to Australian Muslims who needed to travel on public transportation without fear of discrimination.

15. Disturbing New Developments in the Continuing Sony Hacking Scandal

Image courtesy of The City Project via Flickr

One of the biggest stories of the end of 2014 was the Sony Hacking scandal, when a hacking group called the Guardians of Peace (GOP) made its way into Sony’s computer system. The story escalated quickly, as the hacking group demanded that a movie called The Interview not be released, or drastic action would be taken.

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 ICYMI: Top 15 Top News Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that feminism became a huge talking point in the news and on the web this year. More than ever before, we saw women standing up for themselves and calling out the bullshit that is gender inequality. We still have more to do, but let’s just take a moment to appreciate the progress that was made this year thanks to some amazing women–and men–who took up the feminist mantle.

#YesAllWomen

In May, after 22-year-old Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree in California blaming women for rejecting him sexually, women and men took to Twitter, using the hashtag #YesAllWomen to share stories of misogyny they have experienced.

Because my hormones make me an ineffective leader and a man’s hormones absolve him of rape #yesallwomen

— Tessa (@TessaKerlin) May 27, 2014

There’s not a woman I know who wouldn’t fight for a man who was being denied equality & freedom. #YesAllWomen — Muriel B (@QuiltingMuriel) May 27, 2014

No, #NotAllMen are violent against women, but #YesAllWomen have to navigate a world where those who are look the same as those who aren’t.

— Karin Robinson (@karinjr) May 25, 2014

Because every single woman I know has a story about a man feeling entitled to access to her body. Every. Single. One. #YesAllWomen — Emily (@emilyhughes) May 24, 2014

“I have a boyfriend” is the easiest way to get a man to leave you alone. Because he respects another man more than you. #yesallwomen

— Juliet Bennett Rylah (@JBRylah) May 25, 2014

I shouldn’t have to hold my car keys in hand like a weapon & check over my shoulder every few seconds when I walk at night #YesAllWomen — Sophia Bush (@SophiaBush) May 25, 2014

The hashtag received several hundred tweets a second, and just four days after its inception had reached over 1.2 million tweets. It is still going strong, and the solidarity shown by the men and women in the face of sexism and misogyny reached further than most attempts previously.

Calling out catcallers became an internet phenomenon

After one woman’s Cards Against Harassment campaign went viral on YouTube, catcalling became a much-discussed issue on the internet.

The debate centered around whether or not catcallers were being complimentary, and if women should just ignore it. Short answer: street harassment is harassment, and is not a compliment.

Later in the year, a woman walked around Manhattan for ten hours to record the catcalls she received during the day.

Which of course, prompted misogynists everywhere to focus on justifying the behavior of the men in the video, not the woman receiving the harassment. This video too, went viral, and currently has just shy of 40 million views on YouTube.

The media response included a debate on CNN, where the man in the video tries to justify the employment of catcalling. This video also circulated the web after he is completely shut down for his misogynistic views.

Hopefully the women at CNN taught men everywhere something with their debate. Women are speaking up and out against harassment from strangers, but the fight is long from over.

Beyonce’s Feminist Performance

Millions watched the MTV Video Music Awards this year, where Beyonce literally lit up the stage with her feminism. She showed women everywhere that you can be proud of your sexuality, be a wife, a mother, dance sexy, and be famous while still calling yourself a feminist. She did it all while broadcasting one of my favorite feminist quotes of all time:

We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls, you can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful. Otherwise, you would threaten the man…Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, economic equality of the sexes.

-Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Whether you like her music or not, it cannot be denied that Beyonce is at the forefront of feminist celebrities fighting for the cause.

Emma Watson’s UN Speech

Another feminist celebrity, who was named by the Ms. Foundation as the Top Celebrity Feminist of 2014, is Emma Watson. As an ambassador for the United Nations, the former Harry Potter star shook up the world with her speech on gender equality.

She called men and women to action, detailing how it is everyone’s responsibility, regardless of gender, to seek equality for both sexes. She stated, “both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong.”

Male feminists on the rise

They have always existed, sometimes silently supporting the rise of feminism in the 21st century, but the year 2014 saw even more men joining their female counterparts in vocalizing their discontent with society. Even more men took their cues from celebrity male feminists like Joseph Gordon Levitt and Aziz Ansari, who proudly wore the title of feminist while explaining to men everywhere why it just makes sense for men to support gender equality. If you think men and women should have equal rights, you’re a feminist.

The number of women in Congress shot up

For the first time in American history, there are over 100 women in Congress. Yes, it still makes up less than one-fifth of the seats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but that record breaking triple-digit number is extremely encouraging. We are still a ways off from having the 50/50 ratio that would represent the United States population, but the fact that so many women were elected this year gives us evidence that times are changing.

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 2014: The Year of Feminism appeared first on Law Street.

Most women can say with certainty that they have experienced sexism at work. It does not matter what profession or industry; at some point all women will come into contact with a coworker or boss who will look down on her simply for being female. It is frustrating, saddening, and often there is not much she can do to combat it–especially if the misogynist in question is her superior.

But if we do not fight it, nothing will change. And although we may not be able to come right out and say to their faces “you’re a sexist asshole,” we can stop that sexism from affecting the way we do our jobs.

1. #SorryNotSorry

It is a habit that I have noticed in myself and also in friends and female coworkers that we apologize–a lot. Most of the time the apology is unnecessary, and seems as if we are saying “sorry” for giving input, or for requesting something to which we’re entitled.

Watch the video below, produced and marketed by Pantene, as they take on this phenomenon.

Once you realize how much you say it, you can stop. When interacting with a misogynistic coworker, don’t apologize for things that don’t need apologies. Saying “sorry” only reinforces the idea that you are somehow weaker or less than. Put yourself on the equal footing you deserve.

2. Don’t change the way you look or dress.

How to spot a sexist: they will comment on your appearance. No, not compliment–I am not saying “you look nice today” or “I like that dress” are statements that are inherently sexist. More like “your skirt is too short” or “look at you in your sassy librarian boots!” (yes I have heard that before). Obviously, you should dress for whatever your profession may be, but if you are getting negative attention or you are told you need to dress more conservatively–don’t. Unless outlined in your contract, you do not need to dress a certain way. Wear what makes you feel confident and good, and don’t dress to please anyone else but yourself. When faced with negative or sexist comments about the way you look, don’t acknowledge them. Change the subject. Don’t give them the power to demean you.

3. Call them out on their bullshit.

Clearly, you may run into some serious “you’re fired” problems if you just up and yell at the misogynist for being a woman-hating imbecile. Good thing subtlety exists.

My favorite response is to ask questions. If someone–most likely a man–was given a project you deserved, ask why. If a less-qualified man is promoted over you, ask why. When you get vague responses in return, keep asking questions to force them to be more specific. Don’t lose your cool: stay calm and collected and watch them lose theirs. If you can do this in front of other coworkers, even better.

The most important thing to remember is this: don’t let people like sexist men or women hold you back from achieving your goals. One day, hopefully soon, we will live in a world where women are not seen as inferior simply because we are women. Until that happens, don’t be afraid to be you–the amazing, wonderful woman that you are.

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 to Handle Sexism at Work appeared first on Law Street.

It always amazes me when extreme left-wing, second-wave feminists and extreme right-wing, stuck-in-the-1800s conservatives agree on something. Yet when it comes to tonight’s annual runway party we know and love as the Victoria’s Secret Fashion show, backlash comes from both sides. The left thinks the show objectifies and demoralizes women, whereas the right thinks the show is inappropriate and overly sexual.

Well, I am here to tell you they’re both wrong!

“But Morgan,” you may say. “Aren’t you a feminist? How can you disagree?” Notice that I referenced a very specific kind of feminism. A type that I like to call “faux-feminism” because it failed to move on from the extremist, misandrist views held by those women in the 1970s that people still like to associate with feminism today–incorrectly, of course.

The fashion industry has never been clear cut on the issue of women’s rights. On the one hand, you have a business that thrives on women starving themselves and that perpetuates the idea that only one body type is beautiful. On the other hand, you have models like Cara Delevingne who broadcast their feminism on a daily basis, and more and more fashion advertisements geared toward “normal” body types and positive body image.

Victoria’s Secret, as we all know, is an underwear company. Women around the globe, myself included, love to buy their five  for $25 panty specials and comfy campus sweatpants. They sell the idea that women–regardless of size–are the definition of sexy. Aside from some beauty products and an ever-shrinking clothing line, they make their money off of lingerie. It follows that their fashion show would feature just that. What’s more, instead of acknowledging the long-held stereotype of underwear models as “sluts” they make their models “angels.”

But not the cliché of pure, virtuous angels. Victoria’s Secret instead chooses to laugh in the face of the dichotomy of women being either angel or devil: their models are both. They walk the runway in what conservative society deems inappropriate or risqué, and they smile, laugh, and blow kisses at the audience while they’re at it. It’s thanks to feminism that they have the right to walk the runway in their corsets and bikini-cut panties. It’s thanks to feminism that they can enjoy it without judgement.

Oh but wait, we don’t live in a perfect society! These models, who walk the runway and model this lingerie willingly, are still judged for their choice to do so. I hate to repeat myself, but as I have said in several previous posts, feminism allows women to do and wear and be whatever they want. These women choose to be underwear models.

And they are damn good at it. Do I think the fashion show objectifies women? You could make the argument that it does. But from years of tuning into the fashion show, most of the time I just see a fun celebration for the models. Besides, recognized feminists like Rihanna, Taylor Swift, and even the models themselves, perform on that runway. Obviously they don’t take offense to the outfits. Do I think some of Victoria’s Secret’s advertisements objectify women and are geared toward men? Sometimes, but that is a topic for another post.

My point this time around is, if a woman wants to model underwear for Victoria’s Secret, more power to her. Who are we to judge?

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 Victoria’s Secret Angels Model Lingerie and Feminism 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.

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Some things make more sense when it comes to the dress code: no short-shorts, no shirts with offensive sayings, and no pants that sag too low. There are also some questionable additions to the dress code, namely yoga pants, leggings, spandex running pants and other clothing that fights tightly to the body. With the seemingly endless stream of issues that American school teachers are responsible for this begs the question, are yoga pants really the problem?

What’s the fuss about yoga pants?

Yoga pants have really become a hot button topic among everyone from teenagers to fashion’s biggest designers. The pants are made out of a thin material that stretches and gives, which is why they’re comfortable for people to wear. The pants are usually credited as flattering on most body types because they cling to the legs and give definition where there may not be any. The pants also can become sheer when someone bends over, which is a chief complaint among the trend’s naysayers; however, if they are the proper size, that may not be an issue–especially with yoga pants, which tend to be thick. Many schools are dealing with the dilemma of whether or not they are proper attire for the classroom, and emotions run deep on both sides.

What sort of punishments can yoga pants get you in school?

Regulations vary from school district to school district, but an increasing number of them are outlawing yoga pants, leggings, and similar wear. The punishments and ramifications also vary, but they usually involve a request to change into either clothes brought by parents, or provided by the school.

Ashley Crtalic published a well written letter in the Billings Gazette a few weeks ago that raised some interesting points about her local high school dress code, including a punishment that is increasingly popular in public schools: public shaming and humiliation for not following the dress code. Some schools have extra, extra large shirts that say “I disobeyed the Dress Code,” or “Dress Code Reinforcement” on them, showing everyone in the school that that person broke the rules. Students have to either wear the shirt or have a parent bring in a spare pair of clothes.

Alternatively, some schools will have their students sit in the office until parents come in with a change of clothes. The concern with this is that today in America, if a home does have two parents, they usually both work, so requiring a parent to leave work in order to bring alternative clothing to school can be a burden. These students are missing out on important class time that they need, especially if they want to go onto college–all because they wore yoga pants to school. Other punishments range from detention, demerits, loss of privileges, and loss of activities.

How are students fighting back?

Feminism is reaching a whole new, younger audience thanks to social media websites like Tumblr. It is through those platforms that people are hearing more and more about these argued injustices. A 14-year-old student recently put up these posters over signs announcing her school’s dress code, protesting against them publicly and hoping to gain support.

Many school officials claim “distraction” is why these types of pants are banned. Students have responded to that criticism with concerns of their own, however, that such strict dress codes and punishments unduly distract female students. If a female student has to sit in the classroom with an embarrassing shirt on, or sit in the office waiting for a new outfit, she is probably not able to pay full attention to her studies.

Students who disagree with these dress codes argue that the distraction comes in many forms–gossip, catcalling, attention, unwanted touching, or even unwanted pictures. If it is as bad as has been reported at some schools, it would be bordering on sexual harassment, which shouldn’t be tolerated by any school. Those who stand against such dress restrictions argue that part of the purpose of school is to prepare young people to be functioning members of society, one of those things should be how to properly function in public.

So, is banning yoga pants a good idea?

Some argue that not allowing girls to wear yoga pants or leggings to school is a way to keep them responsible for their own appearances, and provide training for when they go into the real world. Girls won’t be allowed to wear leggings or yoga pants to the office, and school is preparing young adults to go out into the work force. Schools have banned pajamas, basketball shorts, and sweatpants for students for similar reasons–they aren’t the correct attire to wear in a professional environment. Supporters argue that it’s not an attack on young women, but rather a valuable teaching moment for students.

Other parents say that not allowing yoga pants or leggings in schools will cut down on the bullying and taunting of other students, namely females. Many girls who are bigger get made fun of for wearing leggings, especially if they cannot find them in the correct size. There is also a question of classism within leggings. Those who can afford the more expensive leggings are more likely to not have a problem with the sheerer, cheaper variety.

Some of the parents who are for banning yoga pants are in favor of instituting a much stricter dress code overall for all students, limiting them to shirts with collars and khaki pants. This works to eliminate some of the label mongering that many schools face, as the outfits will all be similar. It also prepares students for being comfortable in what would be a business casual outfit in college or a work place.

Case Study: Haven Middle School

The administrators of Haven Middle School in Illinois told parents in September that their daughters were no longer allowed to wear shorts, leggings, or yoga pants to school because they were “too distracting.” Parents fought against the rule because they didn’t think it was the girls’ responsibility to stop boys from becoming distracted.

They wrote a petition that 500 students went on to sign, claiming that the rule was sexist. Some students wore yoga pants anyway, in protest. One girl told the Evanston Review that, “Not being able to wear leggings because it’s ‘too distracting for boys’ is giving us the impression we should be guilty for what guys do.”

The parents are fighting back as well, say that, “This kind of message lands itself squarely on a continuum that blames girls and women for assault by men. It also sends the message to boys that their behaviors are excusable, or understandable given what the girls are wearing. We really hope that you will consider the impact of these policies and how they contribute to rape culture.”

As of publication time the dress code at Haven Middle School is still up for review.

Case Study: Skyview High School

When the administrators of the small Billings, Montana high school decided to add the following provision to the handbook over the summer, they didn’t think it would cause a big problem: “Leggings, jeggings, and tights ARE NOT pants and must be worn with dress code appropriate shorts, skirts, dresses, or pants.”

But it was a problem for many students, including one who went to the school board and declared that they were shaming the women in the school. “It’s completely sexist and misogynistic,” she said. “This tells women that our bodies are something that need to be hidden.” It is important to note that boys in the school were allowed to wear sleeveless t-shirts as they are a part of their uniforms.

No one has been sent home for violating the new code, but the principal has said that she has asked students to put on a longer top or sweatshirt. If they don’t have one, they can borrow one from the office. By a week after the ban, 200 students wore yoga pants on the same day.

Conclusion

Dress codes do have a place in our public schools. It is the job of the school district to prepare students for their best possible futures–futures that probably don’t include wearing leggings or yoga pants to the office. They are fine for gym class, for lounging around on the weekends, but in school, the goal should be to learn, not be comfortable. In fact, not allowing any sort of loungewear on the school grounds is a great way to improve the wardrobe of students before they go into college or the workforce. Let’s teach our kids how to dress for success.  As is currently the case of some dress codes or dressing standards, schools are typically assuming that boys can’t pay attention because of the way girls dress; however, we might not be giving either party the benefit of the doubt. By high school, if schools have done their jobs, our students should know how to act. If they don’t, then it is up to principals, guidance counselors, teachers, or other male students to have a meeting of the minds with these young men. This is a topic that will continue to cause contention in our public schools as districts deal with new trends and fads.

Resources

NY Daily News: ‘Distracting’ Yoga Pants Banned By Officials at North Dakota High School

Billings Gazette: Why Yoga Pants Are Incredibly Dangerous to Today’s Youth

My Fox Philly: High School Bans Yoga Pants

Alternet: High School Bans Dangerous Threat to Male Students: Yoga Pants

Fox 17: Leggings and Yoga Pants Are Banned at Niles High School

Boston.com: Your Guide to America’s War on Yoga Pants

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem? 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.

Sign into your Facebook or Twitter at any time and you will see YouTube video after YouTube Video that promotes some sort of political message — from feminist videos about reclaiming our bodies to videos from those in support of the Second Amendment. These videos are increasingly effective and everyone is capitalizing on the immense word-of-mouth profitability that can come from a simple “like” or “share” on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Tumblr.

What used to be a playground for grassroots campaigns is now a major part of marketing for non-profits, politicians, and everyone in between. Still, the question remains – are they working? Are we going too far? Is this the future of marketing for everything?

Why YouTube?

YouTube is the major platform for these videos, and they then go through other social media blogs and eventually end up on your phone, tablet, or laptop, where you no doubt see it from your aunts, friends, or professors.

According to the Kissmetrics Marketing Blog, more than 700 hundred videos are shared every minute on Twitter alone. Sure, a great deal of those are cat videos, cover performances, or someone dancing – but many of them are also videos that have the intent to promote social change.

Hunter Walk, YouTube’s Director of Product Management, spoke with Forbes magazine to explain the YouTube for Good team, an initiative formed nearly three years ago to make the video-sharing site more useful to activists, educators, and nonprofits, along with the ways in which the site, popular vloggers, and others can change popular public perception about YouTube from an entertainment source to an important resource in social change.

“We want YouTube to be a platform where advocacy, education and free expression live,” Walk told reporter Rahim Kanani. “Rather than have a small group of employees dedicated to philanthropy or social innovation, we want employees to think about building ‘good’ into everything we do, like making sure a new product designed for an individual user also works well for a nonprofit.”

YouTube reaches a massive number of people from ages in all areas of the country through the website itself and the subsequent social media shares. The videos seem to have a larger impact on creating actionable feelings — or instilling the thought that someone must donate, sign a petition, share the content, change their behaviors, and/or talk to politicians among other actions — than other forms of online marketing, articles, banners, ads, or hashtags.

FCKH8

Some of the most infamous social change videos come from the FCKH8 company. Its brand of social change is vulgar, in your face, and somewhat controversial. While the apparel company started with tackling homophobia, it has since gone toe-to-toe with racism and sexism. Its most recent video takes aim at the pay gap, sexual abuse, and gender roles – all things that need to be discussed. However, the way it tackled the subject — using young girls dressed as princesses engaged in f-bomb filled rants — has caused some to question whether these subjects are as damaging to their minds as the topic at hand. For sure, this isn’t a video for everyone:

“What’s more offensive?” FCKH8 asks. “A little girl saying f***, or the sexist way society treats girls and women?” But many people are asking: What’s more offensive: The way society treats women, or children dropping f-bombs according to a script, written by adults to sell T-shirts?

Karin Agnes at Time blasts the video, saying: “The problem is that this FCKH8 effort isn’t an outlier in feminism in America today. Comedian Sarah Silverman starred in a video as a woman who decided to get a sex change operation because she would supposedly get paid more as a man. What? This was an effort to raise money for the National Women’s Law Center, which ‘has worked for 40 years to expand, protect, and promote opportunity and advancement for women and girls at every stage of their lives—from education to employment to retirement security, and everything in between.’ Maybe this silly ad helped them raise money, but wouldn’t a serious attempt have been better for women?”

Online news source Sp!ked takes aim at the adults behind the video, asserting that “this just isn’t the way adults are supposed to act.” According to Jezebel, this isn’t the company’s first time in hot water — it recently went through a similar fight when it took on the topic of Ferguson in a “Hey White People!” video.

Laci Green

Sometimes it isn’t a company or a political group that is trying to incite social change, but rather a single person trying to change minds one at a time. Laci Green is a popular vlogger who talks about it all: equality, feminism, sex, consent, relationships, to name only a few topics. While the production value isn’t high and the set designs aren’t immense (in fact, the videos are usually filmed in her apartment), her words cut deeper, ring truer, and stay longer because of it – she truly seems like “one of us.”

Green has a frank style – she is going to tell you what she thinks, she’s going to back it up with facts, and she’s going to take you on headfirst if she feels like she needs to. Green was one of the major YouTubers who stood up for the victims of fellow YouTuber Sam Pepper who was accused of various cases of sexual harassment. But instead of just using it as a way to get viewers, she used it as a learning moment for her viewers and another way to discuss consent, feminism, and personal rights.

Green is a fan favorite of more than 1,000,000 subscribers. Her Sex+ channel started small, but has made an impact that runs deep through the community and with her fans. She may not scream as loud or offend as many along the way, but her steps toward social change are precisely calculated, never flinching, and growing stronger.

It Gets Better

One of the most widespread campaigns on YouTube has been the It Gets Better Project, the mission of which is to communicate to LGBTQ youth around the world that the future will get better, and that they need to band together to inspire those changes needed so that the world will get increasingly better.

From the It Gets Better Website:

“The It Gets Better Project has become a worldwide movement, inspiring more than 50,000 user-created videos viewed more than 50 million times. To date, the project has received submissions from celebrities, organizations, activists, politicians and media personalities, including President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Lambert, Anne Hathaway, Colin Farrell, Matthew Morrison of “Glee”, Joe Jonas, Joel Madden, Ke$ha, Sarah Silverman, Tim Gunn, Ellen DeGeneres, Suze Orman, the staffs of The Gap, Google, Facebook, Pixar, the Broadway community, and many more. For us, every video changes a life. It doesn’t matter who makes it.”

The channel also has many fan-made entries of “real” people who have overcome issues and gone on to live happy, full lives. One extremely touching video comes from Google, where Woody from “Toy Story” tells us, “You’ll be fine, Partner.” For many, it was a Kleenex-inducing moment, but for others, it seemed too much.

One man told the Christian Post that “he was surprised and disappointed that they would use a children’s character for the project,” citing that “endorsing something that at this point children have no need to know about, it’s disappointing.”

Speaking Out Against YouTube Videos

Shortly after the FCKH8 video featuring young girls swearing debuted, it was taken down by YouTube because it violated the company’s terms and conditions. Though it was quickly reinstated, the question remains: how far is too far? With many videos never receiving more than a handful of reviews, it takes more than luck to get attention. There is even a Tumblr dedicated to stopping the company: StopFCKH8.tumblr.com, which makes multiple assertions as to why the company is “bad” for the people it is supposed to represent.

There is also a portion of the population that lives to “troll” or attack the comments, subscribers, and actual performers of these videos. Laci Green recently had an altercation with a man on Twitter in which she was called “sensitive.” The same happens in some of the comments of her videos, people coming in to personally attack both Laci and the people who comment on her videos. The comments section of anything on the internet can attract negativity, but these videos seem to draw even more people in — so what can we do? For certain, young girls, for example, having their beliefs used against them can have negative results. Still, it doesn’t make sense for uploaders to have to continually monitor comments on hundreds of videos; nor does it make sense to not have a comments section at all.

Do the negatives outweigh the positives?

Speak Out for YouTube Videos

YouTube has the undeniable power to unite forces, especially younger audiences, and the shift toward using that power for good is promising. According to Media for Social Change, “Now that YouTube Channels are slowly taking the place of the television channel, it’s become more easy than ever before for changemakers like us to put our message in front of more people. No need to woo the gatekeepers, or pay thousands of dollars in advertising dollars. No need to compete with the big boys with big resources for airtime that’s limited.” By using the platform as a source of both entertainment and inspiration, and sometimes blurring the lines between the two, YouTubers are on the cusp of a social revolution.

The responses from the various projects have been nothing short of remarkable. The It Gets Better Project has grown from a buzzworthy series of videos into an inspirational mantra for youth. They are taking famous faces and connecting them to the change, sharing the positives and the negatives, no longer hiding behind fake smiles and gimmicky stories. Laci Green has become a strong backbone for many — including young people who reach out to her for advice, support, and a shoulder to cry on.

Conclusion

In addition to the videos mentioned, there are thousands of others produced to promote social change. Many of them are not as popular as the ones that have gone viral. Many of the ones that have gone viral have done so not for the best of reasons; instead of the message being celebrated, they are reviled for the content or mocked mercilessly in parody videos.

So is there a limit to what we can do on YouTube, or should we continue pushing through the censorship and keep creating content that is available at the click of a button?

Resources

Shareable: 10 Viral Videos for Social Change – Sharable

The Point with Ana Kasparian: Can Social Media Drive Social Change?

Media for Social Change: Changemakers

Kissmetrics: The 2013 YouTube Marketing Guide

Spiked Online: The Fairytale Feminism of FCKH8

Jezebel: Little Girls Cussing For Feminism Would Be Great if it Weren’t an Ad 

It Gets Better: About the Project

Guardian: Sarah Silverman Sparks Row With ‘Sex Change’ Equal Pay Video

Stop FCKH8: FCKH8 Needs to Stop

Media for Social Change: 5 Top YouTube Channels Doing Good

Forbes: Why YouTube is the Ultimate Platform for Global Social Change

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YouTube for Social Change: Can Improving the World go Viral? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey there folks! Are you pumped for tomorrow?

You should be, because it’s HALLOWEEN! Also known as the spookiest and most fun holiday of the year.

Why am I such a big fan of Halloween, you may ask? Considering it’s a super commercialistic, capitalism-run-amok type of holiday, that’s a great question.

And the answer is threefold.

First, I was fairly obsessed with witches growing up—I was very disappointed when, at 16, I didn’t inherit any magical powers a la “Sabrina and the Teenage Witch”—and so I’m a big fan of the holiday’s spooky pagan roots. As the legend goes, Halloween is the day of the year when the veil between the world of the living and the dead is at its thinnest. Call me morbid and weird, but I think that’s pretty cool.

Second—CANDY. Obviously. I’m very excited for gigantic bags of chocolate to go on mega-sale come November 1st. No shame in my game.

And third—costumes! Dressing up as someone who you’re not can be really fun and empowering. Not to mention, this is literally the easiest holiday to pick up that hottie you’ve been eyeing at the bar. Costumes make for bountiful conversation starters. Go forth and get laid, dear readers!

This is obviously the best way to do that.

So, on the subject of costumes—we’ve seen some real doozies the past few years. We’re looking at you, 2013 Julianne Hough. And I’m here to make sure that you don’t make the same mistakes.

So, if you want to have an awesome time this Halloween while simultaneously not offending people or repelling that barroom hottie, here are five things NOT to do.

 1.) Don’t make a joke about anyone’s death.

Courtesy of Brandsonsale.com.

Last year, the joke was on Trayvon Martin. This year, it’s this dumbass hazmat costume—which, come on people—genuinely doesn’t even make sense. Your whole body is exposed. This costume protects no one from infectious disease.

Anyway! Trayvon Martin isn’t a joke, he’s a kid who met a violent and unjust death. And Ebola victims are also not jokes. They’re real people with families and lives, who are suffering and dying as a result of a terrible disease.

So please, when choosing your costume, pick one that’s not poking fun at any kind of situation where people are dying.

Unless you’re dressing up as a zombie, in which case, carry on.

2.) Don’t wear blackface.

For the love of God, please, oh please, do not wear blackface. DO NOT DO IT. No matter how good of an idea it seems to be, no matter how tempted you are.

Julianne Hough’s costume as Crazy Eyes from OITNB caused quite an uproar. Why? Because she was dressed in blackface pic.twitter.com/LNIxdplR7P

— Black Student Union (@IU_BSU) October 27, 2014

Blackface is always offensive. It is never OK. So just cross it right off your list of costume possibilities.

Seriously. Cross it off now and never consider it ever again.

3.) While we’re talking about blackface, just stay away from cultural appropriation in general, mmkay?

Not sure what cultural appropriation means? Here’s a nifty guide that’ll make it crystal clear for you. But basically, here’s the gist:

If you’re a white person who’s planning to dress up as a sexy geisha, a sexy Arab belly dancer, or anything else that is racially based, you need to rethink your costume choice.

Racism is deeply ingrained in American culture, and you don’t need to be a racist douchecanoe to perpetuate racial stereotypes with your costume choice. Garb that doesn’t read as “white” is understood to be funny, farcical, or exotic—all things that make for perfect costumes—and when you wear a race-based costume, you’re perpetuating stereotypes that label an entire culture as exoticized and other.

Still not convinced? Think of it this way—if a black person dressed up in some American Apparel and Ugg boots, would that pass as a “white girl” costume? My guess is no. Those would just be clothes, and that’s because whiteness is (wrongly) assumed to be the normal, default setting.

AKA, not a costume.

The fact that other cultures can be costumized when whiteness can’t be is, in itself, a perfect illustration of how deeply ingrained racism is in our society.

So just don’t dress up as any other race or culture to which you don’t belong, mmkay? Let’s all do our part to be actively anti-racist.

 4.) Don’t be a slut-shamer.

While you’re out partying this Halloween, you’ll notice that some women will be dressed in provocative costumes. Not all of them, mind you—but some of these women are going to look really fucking sexy.

They have every right to look that way, and have (hopefully) chosen to do so not for your benefit, but because it’s fun and makes them feel good.

I will be the first to admit that I’ll be dressing as a sexy witch this Halloween, and I’m going to have a damn good time doing it. But that doesn’t mean that anyone is entitled to my body, or to shame me for choosing to put it on display.

So, while respectful flirting is encouraged—as long as consent has been given—do not slut-shame, harass, or assault any women this Halloween. Or ever, while we’re at it. But sexy costumes are not an invitation.

5.) Last but not least, don’t be an asshole.

We all tend to be a bit less inhibited when in costume. You can be the craziest of crazy people behind the safety of your dinosaur mask, because no one will recognize or judge you.

But, the thing is, our actions still have consequences. So, please use your costumed bravery responsibly. The people you just screamed at in the middle of the street—because WGAF on Halloween, right guys!?—might be genuinely upset. The person you just creepily hit on might be super freaked out.

So don’t be a jerk, OK folks? We’re all real people beneath our costumes. Let’s treat each other accordingly.

So, who’s ready for Halloween? I am! Get out there and have some safe, respectful, non-racist fun.

And by that I mean, party your asses off.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Things Not To Do This Halloween If You’re a Decent Human appeared first on Law Street.

Recently a video has been making the rounds on my Facebook feed, posted both by people cheering it on and by people questioning the sanity of its producers. The now-viral video features little girls dressed up as princesses and talking about women’s rights. It doesn’t sound so harmless, right? What is so controversial?

The video boasts the title: “Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism.”

Aha.

The video is produced by FCKH8.com, a for-profit clothing company that features t-shirts with mottos like “This is what a #feminist looks like” and “Some kids are gay, that’s okay.” Since its inception in 2010, it has donated more than a quarter-million dollars to foundations fighting for equality, and boast celebrity customers like Ellen DeGeneres, Portia de Rossi, Dan Savage, and Zac Efron. Now, it can add “viral video production” to its list of accolades. It has nearly 100,000 “likes” and more than 400,000 shares on Facebook, and nearly one million views on YouTube.

Watch the video below, and if you are at work or around sensitive ears, I suggest the use of headphones:

Obviously, the first time you watch these little girls swearing like a middle-age man with road rage, it is pretty shocking. We’re not accustomed to hearing proper young ladies use such language!

Here’s the thing: it is meant to shock you. It is meant to grab your attention, and it succeeds. Through all the f-bombs and a-bombs (and I don’t mean atomic), their message is loud and clear: sexism still exists, and it needs to stop.

Or, in the words of one princess, “F*** that sexist sh**!”

Many of the complaints lodged against the video are about the children using curse words. Clearly, though, their parents gave them permission to be in the video, and their message is more important than their foul language. The point is that the rampant sexism and hate in society today is more shocking than girls and boys saying “f***.” Don’t focus on the swearing, focus on the statistics and the facts they are sharing.

Others agree with the message, but dislike the use of children to communicate it. One Facebook commenter said “using children to push a political agenda is one of the quickest ways to lose my respect.” While I agree that young kids should not be forced to share the political opinions of their parents, or stand on street corners holding signs supporting one politician over another, I think these kids do understand — at least fundamentally — what they are saying. They are all old enough to have experienced sexism already, like being told to play with Barbies instead of Tonka trucks or to dress up as princesses instead of superheroes. As the boy featured at the end said, “When you tell a boy not to act like a girl, it means you think it’s bad to be a girl.” Gender roles and sexism are ingrained in us early, and these children are meant to represent that.

One of the big points the girls make is that women are still paid less than men for the same work. Some viewers of the video had a real issue with that, one male Facebook user even posting this ill-informed meme:

The response to this is simple. Companies cannot hire all women for the same reason they cannot hire all men or all people of one race: equal opportunity. Yet, even with this supposed “equal opportunity,” women will be offered lower salaries. The pay gap is real, and by all accounts will not close anytime soon.

“F*** that sexist sh**!”

Along with pointing out the pay gap, they bring attention to the fact that one in five women will be sexually assaulted, using themselves as examples, and saying “Instead of telling girls how to dress, start teaching boys not to f***ing rape!”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

So, go back and watch the video again, share it, discuss it, and look past the swearing. They have to put quarters in a swear jar at the end anyway!

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 Children “Drop F-Bombs For Feminism,” Are You Listening? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey folks! How many of you are big video game players?

Probably a decent number of you. I, personally, don’t really get the whole video game thing, mainly because I didn’t grow up with them. My parents had really strong opinions about what kinds of activities made children’s “brains melt out of their ears.” Melodramatic, Mom.

But! I’m in the minority here. You guys totally like to relax with a cold beer and a few hours of Madden, am I right?

Yeah I am.

So! If you know anything about video games, you probably — hopefully — know about how insanely sexist the industry is. Really, it’s depressing.

Only about 21 percent of video game developers are women. Giant Bomb, the largest online video game database, exclusively employs white, straight men. And the characters in video games? They’re rarely, if ever, women — and when they are, they tend to be hypersexualized sidekicks with insane amounts of T&A.

On every level, from who designs the video games, to who distributes them, to who’s featured in them, the video game world sends one message loud and clear.

This is a place for men.

But the thing is, it’s not. Forty-eight percent of video game players are women. That’s nearly half. The world of video games is absolutely a place where women are hanging out, passing time, and spending money. Yet they’re almost unilaterally shut out of every aspect of the gaming world that reaches beyond their personal playing console.

Enter women like Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. A feminist cultural critic and a video game developer, respectively, these women are two among a community of feminist gaming critics. They speak out against the sexism and misogyny that runs rampant in the video game industry, and on Wu’s part, she develops games that feature corporeally realistic and empowered female characters.

As a result, they both receive violent, sexualized death threats almost constantly. Because obviously, advocating for the video game industry not to be a weird club of circle-jerking white dudes is something that merits murder, right?

Apparently so. This week, those depressingly routine threats of violence reached such a fever pitch that Sarkeesian was forced to cancel a speaking engagement at Utah State University, and Wu was driven from her personal home.

What happened, exactly? We’ll start with Sarkeesian. She was scheduled to give a speech at Utah State University on Tuesday, but the day before, university administrators received an email threatening that a gun massacre would happen if they allowed the event to go on.

Now, keep in mind that bomb threats are par for the course when it comes to Sarkeesian’s speaking engagements. So she’s used to fearing for her life every time she steps out in public, as are the folks who choose to book her to speak at their establishments.

But this time was different. The dude who made this threat sent it out under a pseudonym referencing Marc Lépine, the Montréal shooter who killed 14 women and himself back in 1989. His email reads like something straight out of Elliot Rodger’s diary. And, most importantly, because of the concealed-carry laws in Utah, the folks at USU refused to prevent anyone from bringing a firearm into the event.

So, faced with the prospect of giving a speech to a crowded room full of concealed guns — one of which might be attached to the deranged misogynist who threatened to make sure that all the life-ruining feminists on campus were killed (he literally said that) — Sarkeesian made the obvious decision.

She canceled the event. The lack of security USU was offering left her with no other real choices.

She did.

And this Marc Lépine character isn’t alone. He’s part of a vast community called #GamerGate, which is essentially an online club of gamer boys who haven’t learned yet that girls don’t have cooties. But they aren’t little boys; they’re grown-ass men. And that means that they aren’t just taunting the girls on the playground; they’re threatening to rape and murder all the women in the gaming community who dare open their mouths.

This week, #GamerGate didn’t stop with Sarkeesian. They also attacked feminist game developer Brianna Wu. Frustrated by the boys’ club’s temper tantrums, Wu tweeted a meme poking fun at them.

This was just sent to me, a new meme called Oppressed Gamergater. Love it. http://t.co/Sp9sQPgLxQ pic.twitter.com/6UEWRgPGcn

— Imperator Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) October 9, 2014

The response?

The police just came by. Husband and I are going somewhere safe. Remember, #gamergate isn't about attacking women. pic.twitter.com/ZU6oEVxMGL

— Imperator Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) October 11, 2014

#GamerGate started battering Wu with crazy-train subtweets, threatening to anally rape her until she bled, castrate her husband and choke her to death with his severed penis, and murder all of her future children. Because they were going to grow up to be feminists anyway, so clearly that means they should die, right?

After the threatening Twitter creeps revealed her personal address, Wu was forced to leave her home.

Folks, this shit is batshit insane. The gaming world isn’t the only place where women — and feminist women, specifically — are targeted with a violence and vitriol that’s truly disturbing. Sexism is rampant in the tech industry in general. Just take a look at the wildly sexist (albeit nonviolent) comment Microsoft’s CEO made last week about closing the income gap.

But this week’s events have put the gaming community’s particular brand of misogyny in the spotlight. It’s seriously time this crap stopped.

The men of #GamerGate are threatening to kill women like Sarkeesian and Wu simply because they dare to speak and to work within their universe. They play video games. They make video games. They ask that video game companies hire more female developers and design games with more realistic and empowered female characters.

These are reasonable, nonviolent, nonthreatening requests. They’re only asking for women to be more positively represented in the gaming world.

And yet, somehow, that’s a goal that merits a sexually violent, vengeful death.

This shit’s unacceptable. People of the world — especially you, men of #GamerGate — stop treating the women in your worlds with violence and aggression. We have every right to be here and to demand respect. And if you can’t handle that, we’re kindly asking you to GTFO.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level appeared first on Law Street.

Feminism has been getting a lot of attention in the press lately, first with Beyonce’s VMA display, then Emma Watson’s viral UN speech, and now with a fashion show!

For those not inclined to stare longingly at clothes you can’t afford, this week was Paris Fashion Week — the last in the string of “Big Four” fashion weeks that began in New York on September 4. At home in Paris is one of the most renowned labels ever to be declared couture: Chanel. What began in 1909 when a young woman nicknamed “Coco” opened a small shop in Paris, has since grown into a multimillion dollar brand headed by the infamous Karl Lagerfeld. The native German director of Chanel has long had a reputation for highly staged and over-the-top runway shows, and this year was no exception.

Karl Lagerfeld. Courtesy of marcokalmann via Flickr.

While the 2015 Chanel line looked relatively familiar: 1970s-inspired sweaters, pant suits, and even sunglasses all featuring the signature Chanel logo, its runway show closed not with the usual parade of models, but with a full-on rally complete with signs and blow horns. Suddenly, those 1970s styles took on a whole new connotation: emulations of second-wave feminist icons like Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, and Kate Millet.

While the display was an impressive one, with famous supermodels like Gisele Bundchen and Cara Delevingne leading the charge, many responded with confusion and skepticism:

did chanel even bother looking up the definition for feminism before using signs saying “boys should get pregnant too” and “be different”

— anna (@aaselfie) October 1, 2014

I think Chanel / Karl Lagerfeld’s feminism walk wasn’t genuine. They should’ve done more research rather than using it as a marketing tool — Sam Fazz (@SamFazz) October 1, 2014

I cannot take Chanel portraying feminism as a statement seriously. Lagerfeld is notorious for degrading women based on their appearance.

— n. didonátti (@bonvivantx) September 30, 2014

I know it’s really early, but seriously Karl. Faux Feminism? #chanel #pfw

— kiwi mohamed (@kiwispeaks) September 30, 2014

I couldn’t help but be skeptical myself. Some of the signs the models held had little to do with modern feminism: “Ladies First,” “Boys Should Get Pregnant Too,” and “Divorce Pour Tous” (which translates to “Divorce For All”) rang distinctly of the misandry that feminists try so hard to separate themselves from. They also contradicted signs like “Match the Machos” and “Free Freedom,” which are true feminist mottos. No wonder people were confused!

In addition, Karl Lagerfeld has made headlines before by commenting harshly on women’s looks. The most referenced incidents are his fat-shaming the singer Adele and saying that Pippa Middleton “should only show her back.”

Saying things like that is definitely not okay, but does he do it because he hates women or because he makes a living by selling the fashion world’s concept of beauty? It’s hard to tell.

I think it’s safe to say that, whatever Lagerfeld’s personal motivations are, the feminist rally was little more than a publicity stunt. Even so, Chanel is a brand that started out by breaking rules. Coco Chanel may have never called herself a feminist, but she freed women from what was acceptable or “feminine” for women to wear during her time. It’s thanks in part to Chanel that we aren’t expected to cinch ourselves into corsets!

In the end, the staged rally might not have had the purest motives, but it keeps feminism in the news and continues the conversation. Plus, those references to feminist icons have been noted and shared, and models like Cara Delevingne — a self-declared feminist — will continue spreading true feminist values through her fan base. Could it have been done better? Oh yes. Will it end up helping feminism? Only time will tell.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

Featured image courtesy of [arpad ikuma via Flickr]

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 Always In Fashion, Chanel Stages Feminist Rally appeared first on Law Street.

A group of Catholic nuns is denouncing the influence of big money in U.S. politics by conducting a 36-city tour across the country. The group, NETWORK, led by Sister Simone Campbell, kicked off its Nuns on a Bus campaign called “We the People, We the Voters” campaign. The group is advocating social justice through voter registration and expansion. The group has been the subject of criticism from other parts of the Catholic church, though, as part of an expanding internal conflict between Vatican authority and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

The Nuns on the Bus began their campaigning in 2012 when they condemned income inequality in battle ground states. In 2013 they addressed immigration reform. It isn’t hard to see why some more conservative church authorities would reprimand Sister Campbell and her group. A report from the Religion News Service (RNS) describes an attack by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, on the LCWR: “(Müller) said the sisters were focusing too much on social justice issues, such as caring for the poor and advocating for immigrants, and were too active in promoting healthcare reform.” In 2012, the LCWR was censured in a “doctrinal assessment” for exactly these actions. The Vatican isn’t alone in its criticism, though. The website CatholicCulture.org came out with a scathing article by its founder, Dr. Jeff Mirus, in August. “For decades, the LCWR has been vitiated by feminism, the New Age, Wicca, Modernism and just plain secularism,” Mirus writes.

By staying largely silent, Pope Francis has yet to be fully mired in the controversy. But a column in The Guardian expresses great disappointment in the Pope: “The really disheartening thing about the pope’s unwillingness to end the nuns’ censure – indeed, about his unwillingness to openly support them – is that his stated values are no different than the ones the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is being punished for carrying out,” writer Sadhbh Walshe noted. Cardinal Müller’s reproach of the LCWR is seemingly unregulated by Francis, who has long championed a greater church focus on social justice issues.

How is social justice work compatible with Catholic teachings, and what exactly is meant by “social justice”? For Sister Campbell, NETWORK, and the LCWR, social justice includes advocating for accessible health care, immigration reform and reduced corporate influence in elections. For Cardinal Müller and the Vatican, social justice advocacy is restricted to redressing abortion access.

If nothing else, this case illustrates the complex dynamics of religious authority and the dangers of generalizing when talking about religion. Two opposing interpretations of Catholic teachings on social justice are currently at war, and we wait on Pope Francis to make a statement. While it would be immature to demand that he take one side or another, it would be equally disappointing if he did not use his clout to make a meaningful statement on the matter. This case does more than just illustrate some different Catholic interpretations; it begs the question, why shouldn’t Pope Francis come out in support of the LCWR and activist nuns like Sister Campbell?

Francis also has the opportunity reject the exclusion of feminism from sanctioned church activity. Moreover, he has the opportunity to illustrate how feminism can support sanctioned church activity. Compatibility is the question here. How is feminism compatible with current Vatican doctrine and authority? The extent to which they are compatible can be suggested and advocated for, if not expressly dictated by, Pope Francis. If feminism has truly “vitiated” organizations like NETWORK and the LCWR, then it is also responsible for anti-torture campaigns, environmental activism, and advocacy of nuclear weapons restructuring.

From such an outsider’s perspective, it will never be my place to insist on this or that church doctrine. But Pope Francis, should he make a statement, as he has the opportunity to shape the relationship between feminism and the church.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros) is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government.

Featured image courtesy of [TexasImpact via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Pope Francis Can Shape Relationship Between Feminism and the Church appeared first on Law Street.

Early last week the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that for the first time since 1980 the federal prison population in the United States has dropped. In the last year alone, the federal prison population decreased by roughly 4,800. With new counts projecting the number of federal inmates to continue to fall by just over 2,000 in the next 12 months and by nearly 10,000 the year after, I ask the questions how, why, and what effect will this change have?

Over the past few years the Justice Department has revealed that crime rates have been dropping. Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder aimed to change policies to reflect the belief that increasing the number of people behind bars does nothing to improve public safety. An example of such policies includes The Smarter Sentencing Act — which essentially seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for defendants found guilty of first-time drug offenses — and the more recent Clemency Act, which seeks to release offenders from prison who were unfairly sentenced by mandatory sentencing guidelines. Holder has worked in the last year to reduce a prison population he says is costly and bloated. He was not wrong: in 2014 the country spent approximately $60 billion to incarcerate offenders.

Even as someone who has completed a masters in criminal justice, including a core required course in statistical management (which let’s be honest, was as horrific as it sounds), I still struggle to understand the relevance of the numbers the media is throwing at us. I agree that it is a real achievement that fewer people are being sentenced to time in prison, but I really want society to understand why it is such an achievement, and what this really means.

The decrease in prison population is certainly an incredible start to the potential success of community supervision and its benefits. The one thing these articles fail to point out is just how much further we have to go to protect us as a society, and those who enter into the system. You may be thinking at this point that I am out of my mind for considering the safety and well being of convicted offenders; however, the majority of individuals arrested and convicted are non-violent drug offenders. What the article praising the decrease in the prison population failed to acknowledge is that although certain convicted offenders will not be sentenced to prison, the conditions of their sentence lived in society carry a higher risk of future incarceration than if they were placed behind bars in the first place.

Just because these individuals are not physically locked behind bars does not mean they are not locked behind the transparent bars of social isolation. Rates of unemployment, difficulty securing housing, and loss of family are just some of the hurdles most of these individuals  contend with. Why? Because they have been stigmatized by society with their criminal label. Virtually everyone on community supervision is at risk of being detained or incarcerated upon failure to comply with the conditions of supervision. Would you be able to follow a list of conditions if you felt like no one supported you? In order to support alternatives to incarceration, we really need to welcome the culture of supervision and understand the positives it can bring us. Not only will we be spending less money on the safekeeping of these individuals, but intervention and supervision can be accurately given to each offender to prevent re-offenses, interrupt the cycle of crime in families, and shake up the social disorganization within communities.

Regardless of whether you believe crime is a choice, crime is inherited, or crime is learned, the solid facts are that crime happens. By locking individuals up without any guidance, or even attempting to work on understanding the cause, the likelihood of reoffending is just as high if not worse than it was before that person was put in jail. Legislators clearly have been able to understand the reality that sending people to prison does nothing for public safety, so now it is time they invest money into supervision agencies to aid offenders in the right way. In order for this to happen, well-trained staff, evidence-based programs, and support from others is essential.

It is essential we maintain a safe environment for everyone in our communities. The notable decrease in the overall American incarceration and crime rates is something that hasn’t happened in more than 40 years. This hopefully marks the start of a revolutionary change for the U.S. criminal justice system.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Viewminder via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Incarceration Figures Drop, But Community Support is Essential to Public Safety 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.

Millennial women have made a name for themselves in this century. We are strong-willed, motivated, and persistent. We are self-sufficient and independent. We have access to tools and knowledge our predecessors did not. Yet some Millennials are not taking advantage of these tools because they are simply unaware of their existence.

Let’s take the internet for example. We have access to the World Wide Web and all it has to offer through countless devices — computers, smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, etc. Plenty of websites cater to Millennial women for professional networking tips. These sites are essential for motivated young women who are entering the workforce. At any moment, I can ask Siri what to wear to my interview tomorrow, visit countless websites for coding tips, or search for internship opportunities. Each of these options is literally at the tips of my fingers. Here are some great websites for Millennial women to check out:

Let’s Learn

Girls Who Code’s mission is to provide one million young women with exposure to computer science education. According to FORBES, Girls Who Code hosts events, clubs, and other activities for girls, sometimes even for those still in high school.

Lynda.com provides online video tutorials to help learn “software, creative, and business skills.” Joining is free and provides members with unlimited access to nearly three thousand courses and mobile access.

General Assembly offers courses in a variety of areas from web development to digital marketing. Members are able to attend events with the GA community or simply live-stream from home. GA helps Millennials across the world improve their businesses through various workshops, classes, and events.

Professional Development and Networking

ED2010 helps aspiring editors reach their desired status faster. The site functions as a networking hub, educational resource, and advice column for all aspiring publications professionals.

Intern Sushi is designed for college students to find internships that would be most valuable to them. Intern Sushi is focused on more creative professions, thus encouraging its users to ditch the traditional resume application and replace it with more creative styles like video and graphic visualizations.

Her Agenda is a goldmine for young professional women seeking advancement on their career paths. The site provides information and encouragement through posting events, scholarships, conferences, and internship and job opportunities.

Generation Meh targets young professionals who dislike the idea of a conventional 9 to 5. The site publishes personal and professional tips, tricks, and life hacks. This site is manned by Forbes Woman contributor J. Maureen Henderson.

Advice Columns and Discussion Boards

20-Nothings has collected “anecdotes, advice, and musings on everything from dating to body image.” The site functions as a motivational entertainment source for young women in their 20s and 30s.

HerCampus is most useful for female college students. The site features sections such as style, beauty, campus, career, health, and more. HerCampus has representatives on more than 200 campuses across the country.

The Everygirl is perfect for Millennial women looking for advice on their next vacation destination, beauty tips, and career. This site also takes on a serious tone discussing culture, politics, and finance. It’s basically a powerhouse of knowledge for all young women.

Fashionista Fun

Rookie Mag supplies fashion tips on the go. This site was started by a 17-year-old fashion blogger in 2011. Celebrities make contributions to the publication focused on modern teenage life.

The Classy Cubicle provides all professional fashionistas with the latest trends. Not sure what to wear to an interview at a creative office? They’ve got your back. The Classy Cubicle covers different “categories” of office types and suggests appropriate attire for each one.

Despite the abundance of negative comments and startling information the internet supplies, there is a huge community of support, especially for young women. Aspiring young professionals have countless resources to further their educations, careers, and personal development on the internet. These websites not only share useful professional advice but also support and humor for women of all ages. I encourage all young professionals, working women, and Capitalistas to check out some of these sites, they could change your career path.

Make sure to follow The Capitalista on Twitter at @CapitalistaBlog and on Tumblr at thecapitalista.tumblr.com for more tips, tricks, and suggestions to find your dream internships and jobs!

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@NatashaPaulmeno) is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends.

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Most Useful Career Sites for Millennial Women appeared first on Law Street.

You guys, I’m getting really fed up with the GOP.

This week, Senate Republicans voted unanimously to block the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill aimed at closing the gender wage gap.

It would have encouraged salary transparency among employees, protected workers who share salary information with one another, imposed more serious penalties for pay discrimination, and required employers to prove that any existing wage gaps are in place for reasons other than gender.

Basically, the Paycheck Fairness Act is exactly what it sounds like — a bill that seeks fair paychecks for everyone, regardless of gender.

You’d think that’d be a pretty standard, reasonable goal: pay everyone fairly based on the work that they do, not on the genitals they have! Easy enough, right? Well, apparently not. Because this is the fourth time that Republicans have blocked it.

It’s a pretty counter-intuitive move, considering that just a few weeks ago, the Republican National Committee claimed that, “All Republicans support equal pay.” It appears that these Senate Republicans are voting against the official party line.

This #LaborDay, the White House & Democrats believe paying women less than men is an acceptable practice. pic.twitter.com/AhCYH5RGgR

— RNC (@GOP) September 1, 2014

Not to mention, earlier this month, Politico leaked that the GOP was sorely lacking in support from single women, and would be targeting the Beyoncé-voters’ bloc come election season. Senate Republicans didn’t seem to get that memo, since their actions this week are only further alienating the key voting demographic they need to win over.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a direct response to the realities of gender discrimination in the workplace — women earn an average of 77 cents to a man’s dollar. That statistic hasn’t changed in a decade. And while it’s true that it’s a fairly complex number, determined by a variety of factors, it’s still very real that the average female worker earns less than her male counterparts.

And Republicans are voting to keep it that way.

Women are paid less than men from the minute they enter the workforce right through to the moment they get promoted to the executive corner office. There are a ton of factors that go into the wage gap — industry, tenure, marital status, and education level, just to name a few — but women are getting paid less no matter which of these variables get thrown into the mix.

Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act would send a clear message that the federal government cares about women in the workforce. This bill would not only take real steps toward closing the pay gap between men and women, it would also communicate that female workers are valued. The way they’re treated, and how much they’re paid, matters.

But Republicans are voting to hang on to current practices, like salary secrecy, that work to keep women’s paychecks smaller and their professional contributions undervalued. Why? According to the Senators, they worry that the bill would cause employers to stop hiring female employees, fearful of discrimination lawsuits. They’ve also argued that the wage gap is exaggerated and that women are already protected from discrimination enough.

So basically, the Republican Senators who blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act on Monday night are sending a number of shitbag messages:

They’re dismissing the very real problem of pay discrimination, invalidating the experiences of women who are forced to support themselves on inadequate wages simply because they have vaginas.

They’re telling the world that women are not valuable workers, and that it’s perfectly acceptable for women to work just as hard as — if not harder than — their male counterparts, and get paid less.

They’re upholding a hostile, sexist culture in which, apparently, if employers are expected to treat their female workers in a non-discriminatory manner, they simply won’t hire female workers at all.

And finally, they’re sending a crystal clear message to women across the nation that the GOP does not take our priorities seriously. Instead, they’ll tell us our problems don’t exist, our concerns are invalid and unnecessary, and then vote in favor of policies that harm us.

The RNC’s Twitter account claims to be in support of equal pay for women, but actions speak louder than words.

You’re not fooling anyone, conserva-turds.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of  [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The GOP Blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act AGAIN appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, folks! We’ve finally made it through the week. Phew! It’s been a long one, am I right?

Unfortunately, women in Missouri aren’t feeling much relief today. Legislators in the Midwestern state enacted a bill on Wednesday that mandates a 72-hour waiting period for any woman seeking an abortion. There are no exceptions to this rule, even in cases of rape or incest.

So, unless you are about to literally die as a result of a pregnancy gone terribly wrong, if you want an abortion in Missouri, you’ll have to wait it out through a mandatory, three-day “reflection period.” The bill becomes effective in 30 days.

Folks, this bill is extremely problematic for a bunch of reasons.

First, there are the practical ones. Requiring a standard medical procedure to span over a number of days places a real logistical burden on women seeking abortions. Since there’s only one abortion clinic left in the state, accessing abortion services is already super difficult. Many have to travel long distances to reach this single, lonely clinic — a trip that requires a steep financial investment of gas money, wear and tear on your car, and probably a day off from work.

And that’s all before you can even get the actual abortion, which will cost you money, since a number of restrictions on Obamacare and public employee coverage mean it’s pretty unlikely that your insurance will pay for it.

Now, multiply all that hassle by three. Thanks to this bill, not only do Missouri women have to go through all this mess, they also have to take multiple days off from work and book a hotel room.

Oh! And to top off this logistical disaster, that three-day waiting period? You have to go through counseling sessions before it can even begin. They’re specifically designed to misinform women about abortions, and are meant to discourage patients from going through with the procedure — so add another day to that hotel bill, ladies.

The problems with this bill don’t stop there, however. Aside from the practical issues it will cause Missouri women looking to access safe abortion services, it also wreaks a certain level of psychic havoc.

Forcing women to undergo a reflection period to reflect upon a decision they’ve already thought about and made is incredibly condescending, demeaning, and paternalistic. If you’ve traveled 100 miles to get this procedure done — the average distance a patient at St. Louis’ Planned Parenthood will travel to receive an abortion — you’ve already made your decision.

You’ve thought this through.

Abortion isn’t a decision to be taken lightly, and guess who knows that better than anyone else? WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING ABORTIONS.

Imagine these women were seeking different kinds of medical procedures. A cystectomy, for example, or a colonoscopy. How absurd would it be for someone — aside from her doctor — to step in and tell her to hold on, she’d better think this through?

It would be ridiculous. But the Republican lawmakers of Missouri have decided not to treat abortions like what they are — standard medical procedures — and instead, to separate them out into a special circumstance where women cease to be independent, intelligent adults, capable of making their own decisions. Apparently, when abortions are on the table, the women of Missouri are to be treated like ignorant, irresponsible children.

Now, it’s important to note that this bill didn’t pass easily. When it was introduced earlier this year, Democrats and women’s rights activists protested it, and Governor Jay Nixon even vetoed it. But this week, Republican legislators voted to override the veto, then cut off a Democratic filibuster to force a new vote.

In other words, Missouri Republicans really, REALLY care about forcing women who need abortions to undergo 72 hours of physical, mental, and financial hardship before they’ll be allowed to receive medical care.

Why, exactly, is the GOP so concerned about women’s reproductive systems? The past few years have been filled to the brim with cases of Republican lawmakers restricting women’s access to safe, affordable birth control and abortion services.

New research points to the idea that conservatives believe that women simply shouldn’t be having consequence-free sex. A recent study that surveyed Americans on their views about promiscuity found that people who think casual sex is wrong, also believe that women need a man to financially support them.

So, basically, a woman who’s totally independent, both financially and sexually, is a really foreign and potentially threatening concept to many conservative folks. As a result, they’re trying to reign in our ability to have consequence-free sex — which any man can do, by the way, with a quick stop at a local convenience store.

And in Missouri, they’re doing a damn good job.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If You Need an Abortion in Missouri, Your Life Just Got Harder appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Back to School, folks!

While I was traveling around Canada last month, all of you were clearly partying up your last few weeks of summer, right? RIGHT? I hope so, because law school is now officially back in session.

And you know what that means!

You need me back in the saddle to keep you informed about all the racist, sexist, homophobic legal bullshit that’s going on! (Also, to give you lots of procrastination material. Let’s be real.)

So! Let’s talk about the Republicans and women, shall we?

This is going to be good.

Now that President Obama is getting depressingly close to being a lame duck, all the politicians are really starting to get antsy about the 2016 election. Candidates are being tapped, strategies are being thought out, and groundwork is being laid to win over the decisive voting blocs.

For the Republicans, a key point of concern is the Beyoncé Voters. All the single ladies — and even plenty of the not-so-single ladies — are seriously skeptical of conservatives these days. According to a recent GOP report leaked by Politico, 49 percent of women hold a negative view of the Republican Party. It bluntly reported that women believe Republican policies to be misaligned with their own priorities and to be lacking in compassion and understanding.

As a result, the ladies are taking their votes elsewhere. And for good reason. Women aren’t wrong when they say that conservative politicians aren’t acting in their best interest. Republican policies advocate restricted access to birth control, virtually no access to safe abortion services, the continued entrenchment of rape culture and domestic violence, as well as a hearty LOL at equal pay.

So nope — we’re not voting for policies that take away our bodily autonomy, restrict our access to safe and affordable healthcare, leave us vulnerable to violence, and also make us poorer.

Goodness, what a mystery that more of us aren’t voting for you, conserva-turds!

Well, apparently, Republicans have solved the mystery, and are rolling out a new initiative to win the vaginal vote in 2016.

Are you ready for it?

They’re going to calmly explain to us little ladies that we’ve been mistaken this whole time — the Republican Party really is acting in our best interest — and now that we’ve cleared that whole mess up, won’t you please vote for us, darlin’?

They aren’t going to actually change any of their policies. They aren’t going to actually do anything different AT ALL.

The big, awesome, Republican strategy is to tell women that they know us better than we know ourselves, expect us to laugh good naturedly at our silly, womanly inability to understand the complex, crazy world of politics, and agreeably hand over our votes, glad to have been educated about our own feminine ineptitude.

What exactly will this episode of mansplaining look like? Republicans are going to attack the Democratic claim that their policies are unfair to women — without interrogating or changing those policies, mind you — and every time abortion comes up, they’ll change the subject as quickly as possible.

Conservatives seem to genuinely think this is a good plan.

R.R. Reno, an editor for the conservative journal First Things, wrote a completely serious, non-satirical essay about just how this plan would work in practice.

In it, he creates a fictional woman to use as an example of all the women who are mistakenly eschewing Republican policies. She’s a single, 35-year-old consultant, living in the suburbs of Chicago, “who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life.”

Translation: She’s a misinformed damsel in distress who presumably owns about 12 cats.

Apparently, this woman is in favor of social safety net-type Democratic policies — not because she believes that all people should have access to a baseline quality of life — but because she has no man to provide for her, which is clearly TERRIFYING. She dislikes Republican policies that take away her bodily autonomy and expect her to lead a traditional life of wife and motherhood NOT because they’re sexist and terrible and render her, legally, as a quasi-human/permanent child, but because “she wants to get married and feels vulnerable because she isn’t and vulnerable because she’s not confident she can.”

So basically, all the women who aren’t voting Republican are in serious need of the D. And according to Reno, conservatives can and will deliver it.

He goes on to theorize that our fictitious cat lady should support Republican policies because a pro-marriage culture will increase her likelihood of getting married, therefore increasing her overall happiness. All we have to do is explain that to her! And then she’ll vote for us! Yay! Problem solved!

What Reno, and his conservative compatriots, fail to realize, is that women aren’t voting Democrat because of their inability to legally bind themselves to a penis.

We’re voting Democrat because we want to have control over our own bodies, our own reproductive systems, and our own lives. We want to be able to support ourselves. We want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence.

Also, they’re clearly forgetting that some of us don’t even like the D. (Fellow clam divers, I see you.)

So, Republicans, I totally applaud your strategy for locking down the vaginal vote in 2016. It’s a really great idea.

Because you’re buying Hillary a one-way ticket to the Oval Office.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D appeared first on Law Street.

In case you hadn’t heard from the overwhelming amount of posts dedicated to them, the MTV Video Music Awards happened on Sunday. I, along with millions of other pop-culture followers, tuned in to watch the usual shenanigans of the music industry’s most famous and most notorious. As predicted, there was twerking, flashy costumes, lip-syncing, wardrobe malfunctions, laughter, tears, tripping, and Moonmen. Basically: all the things that forever have me questioning why I watch this nonsense in the first place.

But then, two things of note happened. The first, out of all the unlikely sources, came from the Artist Formerly Known as Hannah Montana.

Yes!

When her name was announced as the winner of Video of the Year (for “Wrecking Ball”, naturally), Miley Cyrus sent up a man named Jesse in her stead. Jesse took out some cards and began speaking. What followed was surprising and heart-wrenching:

“My name is Jesse and I’m accepting this award on behalf of the 1.6 million runaways and homeless youth who are starving, lost, and scared right now. I know this because I am one of these people.”

Visibly nervous, Jesse went on to explain, through constant cheers from the audience, how you could go to Miley’s Facebook page and donate money to help homeless youth in America. I was extremely impressed with this gesture from Miley, as she is now utilizing her substantial fan base to raise awareness and funds for an important cause.

Well done, Miley!

The VMAs were far from done, though. Before the night was through, another celebrity chose to use her VMA performance as a loudspeaker for one of my favorite subjects: feminism. Enter Beyonce.

Courtesy of beyoncegifs.tumblr.com

 Like every Beyonce performance ever, she had intense dance moves, sparkly costumes, and so-so vocals. But her music is not why we are here. No, THIS is why we are here:

Courtesy of beyoncegifs.tumblr.com

In a world where feminism is still (somehow) misunderstood, one of the most popular musicians of our generation declared herself a feminist. That’s not all. Before lighting up “FEMINIST” in big letters, we heard the words of Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie:

“We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls, you can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful. Otherwise, you would threaten the man…Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, economic equality of the sexes.”

If you haven’t already, listen to the rest of this woman’s wise words. The entire speech can be watched here. Go ahead, watch. I’ll wait.

Done? Good.

So Beyonce not only declared herself a feminist, she defined what feminism truly is and did it in front of millions of viewers. I gave her a standing ovation right in my living room. Yet, in spite of all the truth she used her performance to convey, she is still getting negative feedback:

If Beyoncé is a feminist then I think it’s a very cheap and easy sort of feminism she’s flogging. Not really my thing.

— Billy Lunn (@billysubway) August 25, 2014

If Beyoncé has taught us anything, it’s that strip clubs need 10′ tall “FEMINIST” signs

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 26, 2014

Beyoncé, you’re not a feminist. You sing the lyrics “If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it”. That’s the opposite of feminism — Ryan Travers (@ryantravers) August 25, 2014

I couldn’t hear Beyonce’s #feminist statement @ #VMAs over the thong & glittered ass dance ensemble behind her. #ILikeBigButtsAnICannotLie

— Su Castillo (@snarkyzebra) August 27, 2014

Thanks to @Beyonce I learned tonight that requiring female back-up dancers to dry hump everything in sight is #Feminism. Empowering! #VMA

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) August 25, 2014

why can’t Beyoncé make her mind between feminism and female objectification though — Matt Gehring (@mattygehrbear) August 25, 2014

See anything wrong with these? You should. All of them perpetuate a view that someone can somehow demonstrate “incorrect” feminism or that they aren’t “feminist enough.” Really? When feminism’s definition was literally spelled out in front of you?

Just because someone dresses sexy, dances provocatively, or strips on a stripper pole does not mean they can’t be a feminist. Just because a woman is a stay-at-home mom, a Christian, or happily married, does not mean she can’t be a feminist. Feminism does not just encompass all women, it encompasses all people from all walks of life.

If you believe women should be given equal salaries to men in the same field: that’s a feminist ideal. If you believe a woman can be whatever she wants to be, like the President of the United States, or an exotic dancer, or a soccer mom: that’s a feminist ideal. If you think women are objectified in media and entertainment, so do feminists.

“Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, economic equality of the sexes.”

How much clearer can you get? Beyonce performing sexually suggestive routines and songs does not mean she cannot call herself a feminist. Anyone who says otherwise is drawing attention away from the fact that she used her considerable influence to get across a feminist message. For that, we should applaud her. Luckily, most everywhere you look, praise for her VMA performance far outweighs the ridicule and misunderstanding. There is hope for humanity yet!

If nothing else, what should come out of both Beyonce’s and Miley’s demonstrations at this year’s VMAs are more celebrities supporting good causes. When they have such large followings, why wouldn’t they? So Beyonce, Miley: you two keep doing you.

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 Beyonce’s Feminist Message Receives Praise…And Ridicule? appeared first on Law Street.

Hello! Welcome to my blog. I thought I’d start things off with a rather tame subject, so let’s talk about abortion!

Well not really, but sort of. Let me explain.

I was scrolling through my Facebook news feed the other day when I came upon a friend’s status, which read: “Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion.” I wanted to “Like” this bit of wisdom a thousand times over, but on my way to click the little thumbs-up sign I noticed the status had 57 comments.

Fifty-seven.

After expanding the comment section (which was rapidly growing to 60…61…62…)  and reading through them, it became immediately apparent that I had stumbled onto a heated political debate comprised completely of supposed “friends” text-yelling (ALL CAPS) at each other through their comments. It is a social custom I have tried hard to avoid, as it is known to feed on the ignorance and close-mindedness of its debaters, and really who has ever had their opinion changed by a Facebook argument?

This one looked to be no different, but I began reading through the paragraphs of hardly-thought-out arguments anyway, simultaneously amused and saddened by the lack of true information being shared. The friend who had originally posted the status had stopped commenting around number 20 when one of the more opinionated Conservatives in the thread had said: “Of COURSE the man hating feminist is against having babies.”

Whoa.

First of all: this person clearly did not know the difference between feminism and misandry (but that’s a topic for another post). Second: they demonstrate the problem with posting political arguments on your profile.

Now, I am all for sharing your political opinions on social media. Unfortunately, you rarely see people posting statuses that are level-headed and based on fact. Rather, you’ll find opinions rooted in anger and ignorance that employ such devices as name-calling (as seen above) or references to religion that have no relevance to the argument. Also, more often than not, these hot-button topics like abortion, or gay rights, or feminism, spur debates that don’t go anywhere or change anything. Those topics are just small facets of larger issues that need to be addressed: sexual education, women’s health, women’s rights, the definition of marriage, etc.

Let’s look at the short and sweet status that started all this: “Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion.” The reason I liked it so much is because it’s really not about abortion at all. What this status is saying in as few words as possible is that Pro-Choice is about a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. Pro-Choice says that we, as free American citizens, do not have the right to make decisions for thousands of women we have never met. It does not mean that, if given the choice, we would choose abortion. It doesn’t matter. Every woman is different and every single one should be able to decide what happens to her body. And yes, until that baby comes out of her vagina, it is part of her body.

But the topic of Pro-Choice/Pro-Life is at the tail end of a problem that begins with sex ed. Yes, those awkward hours of listening to your school’s P.E. teacher telling you how to put on condoms and explaining STIs. Did you know that not every school kid had to have that class? And of those who did, only a fraction got medically accurate information?

We all laugh at that scene from Mean Girls when Coach Carr is talking about how pregnancy will kill you. You know the one.

The not-so-funny part is that some kids actually receive that type of education from their teachers. According to this map put together by the Huffington Post, in the year 2014 several states don’t even require their schools to share information on contraception.

Courtesy of the The Huffington Post.

If there’s one thing that’s true about teenagers it’s that if they want to have sex, they will. Especially if you tell them not to. How can we expect them to have safe sex, and prevent STIs and unwanted pregnancies, if they don’t have all the information they need to know? It is only logical that if the number of people using contraception goes up, the number of unwanted pregnancies — and therefore abortions — will go down.

Sex ed restrictions aren’t merely for schools, though. Organizations like Planned Parenthood exist to give women and men information about contraceptives, STIs, abortions, adoptions, and healthcare. Yet, people continue to fight these organizations because they perform abortions. The focus, for some reason, is on just one of the many helpful services offered. But, like drugs and firearms, if you make something illegal people will still get their hands on it — and illegal abortions are definitely not safe.

So, for the safety and sanity of all the sexually active people out there: stop arguing about abortion and instead provide some alternatives to the dismal state of sex ed in America. And remember, when arguing about political issues on social media, keep it calm, accurate, and open-minded.

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 Discussing Abortion Distracts From Root Issue: Sex Ed appeared first on Law Street.

Hey loves! How’ve you been? Did ya miss me?

I know, I know, it’s been awhile. I’ve left you hanging. But I’m back now, and after the past few weeks of doom and gloom left in the wake of the Hobby Lobby catastrophe, I’ve got some slightly lighter fare up my sleeve for you all.

Have any of you heard of Google Code School? It’s pretty rad. Basically, Google and Code School — two separate companies — teamed up to offer coding and development classes for folks working in technology. More rad, they announced that they’d be giving out vouchers for free classes to women and minorities — two groups that aren’t as well represented in the tech industry, in large part due to lack of access.

My best friend shared the news with me when Business Insider broke it earlier this summer, and both of us were pretty pumped.

We’re women! We work in technology — sort of. Doesn’t everyone kind of work in tech, nowadays? Our jobs are almost completely dependent on the Internet, so improving on our very rudimentary knowledge of coding would be hugely, wildly useful.

So, my friend and I followed Business Insider’s prompting and signed up for Code School. It was a pretty straightforward application, as user-friendly as all things Google tend to be. We gave our basic identifying information, confirmed that we were, in fact, WOMEN, a.k.a. qualified for said vouchers, and provided a little mini-essay about why we wanted to learn more about coding.

Easy enough.

Unsurprisingly, neither of us was accepted. Probably about a zillion other people applied for Code School, and Google can only give out so many vouchers for free classes. We understand, Google. We forgive you. (Sort of.)

That’s where the story should end, right? Apply to Code School, get rejected, walk away with our womanhood and lack of HTML coding fully intact, right?

You would think so.

But! The plot thickens. In applying for Google Code School, my friend and I were both also clandestinely enrolled in a strange, mysterious mailing list. It’s now terrorizing our inboxes a few times a week.

Has anyone here heard of the Levo League? It’s fucking ridiculous.

On its website homepage, Levo League claims to be a community “dedicated to your career success.” It’s geared toward professional women and offers tips for progressing in your career, weekly video chats with mentors, and job listings. To be fair, some of the mentors are pretty awesome — it counts women like Sandra Fluke among its ranks, and even a healthy smattering of men, like Humans of New York creator Brandon Stanton. (HONY, we love you.)

But, I didn’t come across Levo League because I was excited to hear Sandra Fluke tell me how to stick it to asshats like Rush Limbaugh. Nope. I came across Levo League because it sent me this wildly — almost laughably, absurdly — infuriating email.

Subject line, “How to Dress Professionally for Your Body Type.”

Seriously? This is the awesome advice you’re dishing out to professional women about how to boost their careers, Levo League?

How about, PUT PROFESSIONAL CLOTHES ON YOUR BODY. Boom. Done. You’ve dressed professionally.

Because, seriously, isn’t that what men do? Show me an article telling men how to hide their beer bellies and elongate their legs at work. Can’t find any? Yeah. That’s because a man’s professional worth isn’t measured by how tastefully he shows off his pecks or how skillfully he can cinch his waist.

Articles like this do nothing to help women boost their careers. If anything, they contribute to a culture that devalues women’s contributions in the workplace, reminding us all that our main function is ornamental. We’re only as valuable as we are attractive.

Despite Levo’s obvious effort to be a wee bit less objectifying than most attempts to sort women into shapes — they define body types not by fruit, but by adjectives like “petite,” “curvy,” “athletic,” the ever diplomatic “column,” and the always obnoxious “plus-size” — this is still nothing but sexism and body-shaming, cloaked in kindly advice.

Instead of instructing curvy and plus-size women on how to appear thinner and more petite, and dishing to athletic, column, and petite women about how to appear shapelier, why don’t we just tell all the women to love their damn bodies and pour more brain power into their actual work than into their wardrobe?

Think about all of the awesome, wonderful, revolutionary things women could be doing if they weren’t so busy worrying about whether their peplum top is making their hips look too big.

Think about all the time and brainpower we’d collectively save if we thought less about if our pants are just the right length for our curvy/athletic/column-shaped legs (each type requires a different length, apparently), and more about our actual jobs.

These kinds of advice articles — all of them — do nothing but distract women from doing valuable, wonderful things by reminding us that we have a thousand other things to worry about. Were you feeling confident and secure in yourself for a minute there, sweetheart? Stop that shit right now, take all of the energy you were previously dedicating to positive innovation and self-love, and redirect it toward fretting endlessly about all of the insecurities our patriarchal, consumerist society has manufactured for you.

Not to mention, this particular article assumes that all of the women it’s addressing are cis-gendered, feminine, and upper-middle class. Levo League, like so many other women-in-business organizations, fails to address the needs of queer folks, gender-non-conforming people, butch women, poor women, or working class women.

In other words, Levo League is really only interested in helping the women who need help the least. They’re not about inspiring and facilitating a mass revolution, where all the women collectively rise up and improve their lots in life. They’re about helping already privileged women amass even more privilege.

Levo League, you’re not helping. You’re just perpetuating the same damn problems that keep women disadvantaged at work in the first place.

Knock it off.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured imaged courtesy of [Andre Benedix via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Levo League’s Advice to Working Women: Look Prettier appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks!

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks for women out there.

First—as I’m sure you recall—SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, giving employers the right to deny workers birth control coverage because of religious exemptions, and essentially giving douche-wad bosses everywhere the potential to control their employees’ uteruses.

Awesome.

And now, things are getting much, much worse.

Following the Hobby Lobby decision, religious institutions, religiously-run corporations, and basically anyone who is a fan of Jesus and also has some modicum of control over other people’s lives, are filing for the right to discriminate against people under religious exemptions.

Say good-bye to your civil rights, folks.

A group of 14 religious leaders wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in closely-held corporations. George Fox University demanded a religious exemption that would allow it to bar a transgender student from living on campus, and the Department of Education granted it.

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her?

And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

Loves, this shit is scary. And not fear-monger-y type scary. Legit disturbing.

When the Hobby Lobby decision first came down it signaled yet another chip away at civil liberties and women’s rights in this country. One more piece of legal bullshit that diminishes a woman’s right to control her own body. One more reminder that women aren’t seen as real people or full adults in the United States, but rather as wards of the state, our spouses, our fathers, or apparently, our employers.

But as awful as that is, the asshat Justices who voted for this decision assured us that the Hobby Lobby ruling would end there. It would be a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation, and that feminists would only have to fight against this one, single issue. Access to birth control regardless of what your boss’s religious beliefs are.

Justice Ginsburg called bullshit, and now I’m calling that she was right.

This ruling is not narrow. We can no longer be solely concerned with its reversal because women deserve the right to control their own goddamn bodies.

Nope. Instead, it’s turning out to be frighteningly broad, as the Supreme Court demands reviews of similar cases in lower courts and considers handing out more religious exemptions based on the precedent that Hobby Lobby’s now set.

Where does this end? There’s really no way to know just yet, but the possibilities are kind of endless.

Don’t want to hire women at your company? Sure thing, buddy! Claim that doing so would place an undue burden on you as a result of your religious beliefs and you’re good to go.

Don’t want to hire black people at your company either? No problem. Religious exemptions all around.

Can’t stand the thought of your female employees having consequence-free sex? Awesome. Religious exemption and boom! You just gained control over your workers’ uteruses. Don’t you feel better knowing your vagina-laden employees aren’t sleeping around (at least, not without feeling extreme anxiety about their reproductive systems)?

And maybe you don’t want to pay LGBT people the same amount of money as your straight employees. Or maybe you don’t want to hire them at all! Cool, dude. Religious exemption.

This shit is ridiculous. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court just created a loophole for every piece of non-discrimination legislation ever enacted. Civil rights of all kinds—not just for women—are at serious risk. If anyone feels like they want to engage in some good, old-fashioned discrimination, they can pretty much do so! They just have to make a case for getting a religious exemption first.

And clearly, based on the fact that Hobby Lobby won its case, despite building it on a foundation of craptastic non-science, that’s not super hard to do.

So, way to go, SCOTUS! You really fucked things up for all of us, this time. Not only have you created an environment where everyone can be their own law book, but you’ve sent us down a path that will undoubtedly be littered with regressive politics.

The fight for personhood just got that much harder, lovelies.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daryl Clark via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, this is not a happy Tuesday.

Why? Because the Supreme Court made a really shitty decision yesterday. (And we’re not even talking about the bullshit Aereo ruling from last week. WHY DO YOU TAKE ALL THE GOOD THINGS AWAY?!)

Monday, with a slim 5-4 majority, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, deeming that employers can’t be legally compelled to provide insurance coverage for birth control and emergency contraception that are in conflict with their religious beliefs.

This decision is so wildly fucked up on so many levels. SO. MANY.

For those of you who don’t remember, we covered the Hobby Lobby case here at Law Street earlier this year, but here’s the quick gist: the company, which is owned by a family of devout Christians, is not a big fan of the Affordable Care Act and its rules regarding birth control.

While so far Hobby Lobby’s been covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA for its employees, it’s been holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception and two forms of emergency birth control. Why? They’re spewing some zealously crap-tastic pseudo-science claiming these methods are “abortifacients,” which they unequivocally are not.

Despite the fact that Hobby Lobby’s case is built on totally unsubstantiated non-science and a complete disregard for the separation of church and state, SCOTUS decided to rule in their favor.

Now, thanks to this fuckery, if your boss’ religion says you shouldn’t be preventing or planning your pregnancies, sorry ladies! No bodily agency for you. The guy who signs your paycheck each week now controls your uterus.

Oh, and just to be clear, this refusal to cover birth control methods only applies to women. Vasectomies, which serve exactly the same purpose for men, will still be covered. So we’re really not talking about the religious evils of family planning or bodily autonomy. We’re only talking about the evils of women maintaining control over their lives.

But actually.

First of all, let’s talk about who made this decision, shall we? A tiny little group of men.

Literally. That slim majority who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby was 100 percent men. Every female Supreme Court justice sided with the dissent. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. (Obligatory shout out to Justice Stephen G. Breyer for being the only dude to side with the feminists on this one. We appreciate you, sir.)

So, let’s all take a moment and sigh gigantic, heaving sighs of exasperation at the fact that the bodies of women all over this nation have just been legislated by five, non-uterus-having men.

This could not be clearer. This ruling is about controlling women. Plain and simple.

And it gets worse. Aside from the fact that a bunch of entitled, sexist, wing-bat man-justices just infringed upon women’s bodily autonomy, they also opened up a Pandora’s Box of legal ambiguity.

As the oh-so-wonderful Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points out in her ball-busting dissent, exempting employers from providing health insurance coverage for birth control because of their religious beliefs brings up a slew of other possible exemptions.

Will companies owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses be allowed to withhold coverage for blood transfusions? Can Scientologists deny their employees antidepressants? The pig-derived ingredients used to produce anesthesia, vaccines, and pills coated in gelatin can conflict with the religious beliefs of Muslims, Jews, and Hindus. Will employees of companies held by owners of these religions find themselves without coverage as well?

In truth, maybe. That’s the precedent the court is setting with this Hobby Lobby decision. So, watch out if you work for an orthodox Jewish-owned company and need surgery. You might have to suffer through it sans anesthesia.

Seriously? This shit is ridiculous. The legal absurdity SCOTUS is willing to open itself to in the interest of tightening its leash on American women is completely, batshit crazy.

But wait. There’s more. Now that SCOTUS has decided that companies/people (because corporations are apparently more human than women) can pick and choose which parts of a law they abide by based on their religious convictions, all of the laws have the potential to become piecemeal and sort of meaningless.

Everyone, potentially, can become a law book unto themselves. Don’t like this new bill? No problem! Say it conflicts with your religion, and you can opt right out. This defeats the purpose of law entirely — which is, presumably, to protect the people with a set of rules that are established for the common good.

There is no common good anymore, and there is no protection. Your employer thinks you’re a slut who shouldn’t be sleeping around? Too bad for you, love. He can limit your choices and circumscribe your life, and you get no say in the matter.

And finally, the mess this ruling makes out of the freedom of religion clause is insane. Folks are meant to be free to practice their religion without fear of persecution — not to impose their religion as a tool for persecution on unwilling others.

At this moment, the United States is as politically polarized as it was during the Civil War. Secularist, social-safety-net-supporting liberals and religious, anti-tax conservatives are at war right now. This Hobby Lobby decision is just another case in which the battle field is women’s bodies.

So let’s fight this bullshit war, folks. If you believe that women should have affordable access to birth control, join me and Planned Parenthood by telling SCOTUS just how you feel.

We want control over our own bodies and our own lives. Fuck anyone who gets in our way.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Just Made a Battlefield Out of Women’s Bodies appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, have you been watching the news lately?

I’m guessing yes, because you’re all socially conscious, politically engaged legal mavericks, right?

Awesome! So you’ve heard about ISIS, then, I’m sure.

In case you haven’t been watching the news lately — because sunshine and summer weather — ISIS is an extremist Muslim terrorist group that currently controls a significant chunk of northern Iraq and parts of rebel Syria. Not coincidentally, their territory overlaps a TON with important oil sources. Once a part of al-Qaeda, ISIS split off as its own separate entity earlier this year.

Why?

Because their ideology was too extreme even for bin Laden’s cronies. That says a lot.

ISIS — which stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – made news this week after the Washington Post translated its “Contract of the City,” a document that was distributed to citizens of the Iraqi province of Nineveh. Folks, it’s pretty cray.

The contract essentially reads like a list of rules, a dos and don’ts guideline, if you will, for the people of Nineveh. It lists limb amputation as a suitable punishment for stealing, allows for the crucifixion of criminals, and essentially bans women from leaving their homes.

This is really not cool. But! Before you get all hawk-eyed and demand American intervention in Iraq to save all the poor, downtrodden Iraqi victims, let’s all take a moment and listen to Jon Stewart.

I fucking love this man.

Folks, here’s the deal: Groups like al Qaeda, and its increasingly violent offshoot, ISIS, are awful and dangerous and need to be stopped. They totally need to stop existing. We are all in agreement there.

Not only do they pose a threat to the Iraqi people as a whole — who are at risk of getting their limbs chopped off willy nilly if they break a rule on their way to work — but they also pose a threat to the larger global community. Their ideology is depressingly common, and the more power groups like theirs seize, the more hostile the world becomes to people who don’t fit into their agenda.

Namely women, queer people, trans people, disabled people, and people of different races, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds.

This is a group that sees women as inherently less than. They’re required to wear “modest dress,” which essentially means they’ll be punished for wearing anything other than a full burqa. They can’t leave their homes. They are bought and sold like property from fathers to husbands. And wife beating? Totally cool.

ISIS doesn’t see women — or anyone else who isn’t a straight, masculine-presenting, Muslim man — as people. They’re not human beings. It’s a really, really bad situation.

And because of that, along with obvious national security concerns, many Americans want to rush our military right back into Iraq. John McCain, as the always entertaining Jon Stewart reminds us, is one of those folks. But there’s a huge hole in that plan.

Groups like ISIS exist because of Western intervention in the Middle East. They are a direct result of Western imperialism. Al Qaeda formed in the late 1980s as a reaction to Russia’s occupation of Afghanistan — a move that subjected the Afghan people to extreme violence and poverty. It formed as a resistance movement, an answer to the injustices Afghanistan faced at the hands of European, imperialist oppressors.

And they only gained traction as the West continued to insert itself into a corner of the world where it ultimately didn’t belong. Violence and living conditions worsened for civilians. Coups were staged, leaders were deposed, and corrupt figureheads were set up in their place. (Remember Saddam Hussein? The U.S. and Great Britain put him there).

The political problems that plague the Middle East are largely our fault. But instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of misguided power-grabbing and oil pursuit, the U.S. likes to paint a different picture. A pretty racist one, in fact, where Iraqi is a confused, childlike nation, unable to govern itself without making a huge mess. And Americans? We’re painted as the concerned father figure, stepping in to calm the commotion.

But folks, it’s not true. This story is a lie.

The U.S. isn’t a soothing father figure. It’s more like an instigator. And the sexist, xenophobic ideology of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda isn’t the product of an unsophisticated, backward, childlike nation. The ideology of our conservative leaders is chillingly similar, if more palatably phrased and with Jesus, not Allah, at its helm.

The white savior narrative that war hawks like John McCain are spewing was created by an elite group of politicians and corporate powerhouses who crave money, power, and oil. They don’t care what it costs.

But I hope that you do.

Let’s come up with a more innovative solution to warmongering in Iraq. A solution that doesn’t rely on lies, racism, and increased violence. A solution that creates real, positive change for the people living under ISIS’ tyranny.

Show the comments what you’ve got.

Featured image courtesy of [United States Forces Iraq via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PLEASE STOP: How Warhawks Are Perpetuating Violence and Racism appeared first on Law Street.

She was the Hillary Clinton before Hillary Clinton. She stared gender stereotypes in the face and boldly took them on. She paved the way for women desiring to make their mark in the political world and did so with pride. Though she never once considered a career in politics growing up, Patricia Schroeder became a national icon and a representative of women and their rights during her time serving in the United States Congress. She shocked the masses time and time again, especially when she ran an unprecedented campaign for President of the United States.

Despite her monumental achievements, she is surrounded by a humble and genuine air. I felt completely comfortable approaching her at her appearance at the Library of Congress last week to request an interview. I wrote a brief article chronicling the short event, which barely whet my palate of curiosity. Luckily she quickly agreed to my request.

Patricia Schroeder, born in Oregon, comes from modest beginnings. Her father worked in the aviation industry, which often uprooted the family from one city to another. Because of her father’s career, Patricia Schroeder obtained a license to fly and developed an admiration for Amelia Earhart, along with other bold female figures. “Eleanor Roosevelt and Amelia Earhart were two women who spoke their minds and branched out and did things that women weren’t normally doing,” Schroeder explained in a pensive tone during our phone conversation.

Because her mother was a teacher, Pat Schroeder grew up with a female role model who was successful as both a mother and a working woman. “I was very lucky in that my mother was a teacher and I didn’t have as many hangups about being able to work and raise my children. I didn’t have such a severe attack of guilt about doing both. [My parents] encouraged me to do whatever I want.” Schroeder does not think that her political career had any negative impacts on her children. “They are both well adjusted, not on drugs, one went to Princeton and got a PhD, one went to Georgetown and got an MBA, and they’re both married with two kids.” Yes, it sounds like they are doing just fine.

During our interview, Schroeder recounted an amusing anecdote about the time when her son called her while he was at college. The simple reason was to thank her for not constantly asking if he was dating anyone like the mothers of his friends did. Schroeder said that the information about his friends’ romantic lives was none of their parents’ business.

After attending the University of Minnesota for her undergraduate degree, Schroeder attended Harvard Law School. When I asked how her time at Harvard changed her as a person, she pointed out that it was good preparation for entering into the male dominated Congress later on in life. “I went to the University of Minnesota first and there were 30 or 40 thousand students. It was huge and we were assumed to be adults; if you come and you pass, great, if you come and don’t pass, too bad. At Harvard it was more regimented in a way. A lot of the students had always gone to private schools or [gender] segregated schools and couldn’t get over going to schools with girls.” She told me that men constantly lectured her about taking a “man’s job.”

Despite her immense success as a player in the political arena, Schroeder never considered a career in politics before her husband’s suggestion that she run for congress to challenge the Republican incumbent in their Colorado district. James, her husband, was not only responsible for jump starting her career as a politician at age 32, but also acted as a role model for men whose wives were in similar roles. “A lot of guys didn’t know how to manage if their wife was in a prominent role,” Schroeder explained. “They thought it reflected on their masculinity.”

Being one of the few female politicians at the time was certainly challenging, but Schroeder used a variety of techniques to combat the difficulties. When I asked if she ever tried to change herself to better fit into the testosterone-dominated world of Washington politics, she quickly answered, “No. I always figured I was not an actress. If I couldn’t be myself this whole thing was not going to happen. What you saw was what you got.”

She was always well known for her quippy one-liners and sense of humor. For example, when asked how she could be a mother and a politician, she explained that she had “a uterus and a brain that both worked.” According to Schroeder, “humor is a wonderful way to keep your head. You can either get mad or find humor in it.” She partly attributes her ability to come up with her famous quotes to her gender. “Males always use sports analogies. Part of why people thought [my sense of humor] was different, was just the gender difference in what women might say. They rarely talk about ‘moving the goal posts’.”

Though in some ways women’s rights have come a long way, many issues still stand out for Schroeder as great challenges facing women today. “To me, it’s shocking that we are just a few years away from looking at having had the vote for 100 years, and yet we still aren’t in the constitution. Still? Remember Abigail Adams writing to John saying ‘remember the ladies’? Well, they still haven’t remembered the ladies.” Preventive healthcare for women is also an issue at the forefront of Schroeder’s mind, as it always was during her time in Congress. “One hundred years ago, Margaret Sanger was saying contraception was a big part of women’s preventative health issues and now the Supreme Court is looking into if it is necessary.”

Schroeder also criticizes the lack of equality between women and men in the workforce, and the measly amount of time given to women for maternity leave. “Two-thirds of the minimum wage earners are women and women college graduates will make less than men by about one million six.” Single moms have still got a really tough time, and we haven’t done anything to make childcare more accessible. In the United States, if you work for a group of more than 50 people you can get 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Women are not a minority, yet we haven’t been able to put it together and say ‘enough already.’ Somehow, it just hasn’t moved women and I guess I must be strange.”

During both of my encounters with Schroeder, she proved to be anything but “strange.” I see her as simply ahead of the curve, as she always was. Her iconic role as a political pioneer for women made it easier for them to enter into similar careers. Patricia Schroeder is a prominent advocate for taking action to make a change. “Don’t wait for somebody to ask you — men never wait to be asked. We keep pretending that we are at a dance and this is not a dance. Women are 100 percent qualified and men about 50 percent. Getting women to step forward and say ‘I can do this’ is very important, and they couldn’t mess it up any more than it already is.”

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Patricia Schroeder: Trailblazer for Women in Politics appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Hump Day, folks!

Have you had your mid-afternoon pickmeup yet? I fucking hope so, because I’m not easing you into this today. We’re just going to cut right to the chase.

We’re talking about rape, today, folks.

Prepare to be simultaneously infuriated and irrationally happy.

About two weeks ago in Calhoun, Ga, it was prom night. The teenagers of Calhoun High School were pumped to get fancy and get down. Let’s all picture the jubilation of Footloose, for a moment, shall we?

Awesome. But post-prom, shit started to get a bit less Kevin Bacon and a bit more Steubenville, Ohio. At an after party — predictably held at a secluded cabin in the woods — nearly 30 students got super drunk. Things quickly spun out of control.

After several hours of heavy drinking, an 18-year-old woman found herself in a room with four of her male classmates, where she was allegedly gang-raped. The victim reported being unable to remember exactly who raped her, only recalling that it was multiple men, and that foreign objects were inserted into her vagina. The victim suffered severe internal injuries from the assault, including substantial, traumatic, vaginal tearing.

Cue feelings of shock and appall.

What the fuck is going on here, people? What. The. Actual. Fuck.

This is not the first time I’ve written about rape here at The F Word. In fact, I’ve written about rape a depressing amount. We’ve talked about the infamous Steubenville rape case, the reasons your rapist probably won’t be facing any consequences, and the fact that lawmakers in Michigan are forcing women to take out rape insurance.

The world is filled with fucking rape. This is news to no one.

But let’s take a moment and think about why in fuck’s name this shit keeps happening. Why are men consistently and violently forcing themselves onto unwilling women?

Because they feel fucking entitled, that’s why.

Awesome attitude, dude.

Alcohol and drugs and partying and short skirts — contrary to what Fox News and its ilk will have you believe — do not cause rape. Rape culture causes rape. It’s a culture that privileges men and other masculine folks as the arbiters of power to be wielded over an inferior class of women and feminine-presenting folks. It’s a culture that says “boys will be boys,” “penises have a mind of their own,” “men can’t control themselves.”

It’s a culture that tells women to carry pepper spray, to pull their skirts down, not to go out at night alone, not to drink, not to date.

It’s a culture that tells women not to live their lives freely, so as to avoid violent assault, all while giving men free reign to do whatever the fuck they want, consent be damned. This is a culture that tells men they own the streets. They own the world. And they own women’s bodies.

This guy. This guy all over the fuckin’ place.

We all know that this rape in Calhoun is no isolated incident. But let’s reiterate just how not isolated it is.

1 out of every 6 women in the U.S. has been the victim of sexual assault.

That’s a lot of fucking women. And those are just the ones who are reporting their experiences and being counted — if we take silent victims into account, the numbers soar higher. Not to mention all the men who get raped, all the trans folks, all the genderqueers who aren’t being counted because statisticians aren’t sure where to fit them into the equation.

Rape is a hugely, wildly pervasive problem, and its victims are paying a lifetime price.

But the rapists themselves? Ninety-seven percent of them will face no jail time at all. No consequences. No accountability. Nothing.

This is beyond disappointing.

Now, it’s important to note that the vast majority of men and masculine-presenting people are not rapists. All you “Not All Men!” devil’s-advocate-conversation-derailers, please save your breath. We are fully aware that not all men are violent, rapist fucks.

And this Calhoun case is living, breathing proof of that. It stands out from other recent high-profile rape cases — like Steubenville — in that the authorities have taken the victim’s allegations seriously, are pressing substantial charges against the alleged perpetrators, and have not carried out a gross, slut-shaming, rape-apologist smear campaign against the victim.

This is the part where we can all get irrationally happy. Authority figures simply doing their jobs shouldn’t be cause for shocked celebration, but it’s undeniably rare that a rape case gets handled appropriately. Bravo, Calhoun law enforcement! Thank you for rising to the level of our depressingly low bar! (I mean that in the most sincere, not-sarcastic way possible, I promise.)

But amid our relief that Calhoun seems to be doing things right, we can’t forget about why these things keep happening.

Those four high school boys gang-raped their classmate for the same reason Michigan legislators are forcing women to buy rape insurance. That’s the same reason Daisy Coleman’s house was burned to the ground after she tried to report her own rape. It’s also the same reason Elliot Rodger murdered six people in Santa Barbara after penning a manifesto about what a crime it was that women had failed to offer him their vaginas on a silver platter.

It’s because we live in a society that doesn’t teach men not to rape. It doesn’t expect men to treat women or their bodies with kindness and respect. It makes excuses for violent behavior, shifts blame to victims, and props up an overarching culture in which men feel entitled to a woman’s sexuality and bodily autonomy.

Not all men are rapists, murderers, misogynists, slut-shamers, or victim-blamers. But all men live in a world where they’re mostly allowed to be. And women? All of us get to live in fear of meeting the same fate as Daisy Coleman, or running into an Elliot Rodger — and then being blamed for our own irresponsibility for putting ourselves in a position to be harmed in the first place. Don’t believe me? Just ask #YesAllWomen. This shit is real.

So folks, let’s raise this bar. Let’s create a world where it’s not exciting to meet a man who doesn’t feel entitled to your body, or a cop who will take your rape case seriously. Let’s fashion a society where all people — regardless of their gender — can move through the world without the fear of violence and domination. Let’s do it together.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Eric Parker via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post BREAKING: Cops in Georgia Are Taking a Rape Case Seriously appeared first on Law Street.

Happy graduation week, folks!

My office is right across the street from Radio City Music Hall in New York City, and I’ve been watching NYU’s Class of 2014 swarm the neighborhood all week. To all of our wonderful readers receiving diplomas — congratulations! You fuckin’ did it.

It’s been an eventful week, what with Michigan passing this craptastic rape insurance bill (excuse me while I barf all over my keyboard), and the backlash around Shailene Woodley’s not-a-feminist comment still swirling. Plus, the internet is filled with awesome commencement speeches. We’re looking at you, Sandra Bullock and Charlie Day.

Basically, this has been a week where we’re all looking ahead to the future. And so, we’re going to take a moment here and talk about the future of feminism.

SPOILER ALERT: It doesn’t just include the vagina-bearing likes of Shailene Woodley. Nope. It also includes men.

So, dudes of the world, here’s why feminism isn’t just for the ladies. It’s a fairly big deal for you too.

Let’s start by saying that, unless you’re a close-minded, neanderthal jerk, you believe in social, political, and economic equality between the sexes. If you DON’T believe in said equality — i.e., you’re a big fan of women being treated as inferior and subservient to men — then you are gigantic douchebag and I advise you to reform your troubled ways immediately.

Seriously, guys. We’re calling it like we see it. You’re not old-fashioned or traditional. You’re just a jerk. Get it together, would you please?

Thanks. Now, for the vast majority of you wonderful, well-intentioned, equality-minded men, listen up. I’ve met a lot of you who don’t actively identify as feminists. You’ve told me that it seems like a women’s club that you don’t really have a place in. Not to mention, you don’t entirely get it. Sure, ladies should be getting equal pay and all that, but we’re not the only ones who are suffering in this gender-biased society. Men get kind of a crap deal too.

Yes. Yes you do. And that’s why feminism needs you.

See, feminism isn’t just about securing safe and affordable access to abortion services, or raising a woman’s 77 cents to match a man’s dollar. Those are important aspects of the feminist cause, for sure, but they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

As a whole, feminism is about creating a more open and egalitarian society. As feminists, we’re fed up with gender roles that position women as sex objects and men as commodified breadwinners. We’re tired of values that expect women to cook and clean and men to pay all the bills. We’re sick of being told to “act like a lady” — to look pretty and keep our mouths and legs shut. We’re equally sick of being told to “be a man,” to be emotionless and aggressive to prove your masculinity.

Feminism is about achieving social, political, and economic equality for women — yes — because that’s something we still don’t have.

But it’s also about destroying the gender binary that’s currently ingrained in our society. It’s harmful to men, women, transfolks, genderqueers, and everyone in between. We’re all expected to play roles that don’t quite fit, to prove ourselves and our identities over and over again, to punish ourselves with shame when we fail to measure up.

We’re all left with a constant and nagging feeling of insecurity in our selves — in our worth as human beings — when we feel the need to qualify our desires, our actions, and our feelings with disclaimers like “no homo” and “man up.”

And all of us deserve to feel totally secure in our wants and needs, to feel completely comfortable in our skin, to be entirely at ease with our individuality.

Feminism wants that to happen. We’re working to make our relationships with each other less about power struggle and arbitrary expectations, and more about mutual respect and genuine human connection. And even more importantly, we’d like to make our relationships with ourselves less about shame and insecurity, and more about radical acceptance and self-love.

I feel like that’s a cause we can all get behind, can’t we?

So while you’re getting inspired by all the commencement speeches that are going viral this week, think about the future you want to help create. If it’s one where we break down this dysfunctional gender binary that’s holding us all back, then you’re a feminist.

Own it, menfolk. You’ll be making the world a better place.

And, bonus points – nothing’s sexier than a feminist man. Just ask Feminist Frank. (Seriously, feminist men, we love the shit out of you.)

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Toban Black via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dear Men: Feminism Makes You Sexy appeared first on Law Street.

Loves, the conservaturds are at it again.

Conservative pundit and asshole extraordinaire Ann Coulter decided to use her considerable star power for the greater good this week. Harnessing the power of social media, she took to Twitter to show support for her fellow human beings, advocating an end to gender-based violence and oppression around the world.

LOL JUST KIDDING.

Did I have you going for a second there?

Probably not! Because unless you live in an actual cave, you know that Ann Coulter is probably the least positive person in the history of political pundits.

Thank goodness this lady is just a culture maker and not a legislator. That would make her even more horrifying than she already is (which is saying a lot).

So, since we’ve established that the woman infamous for condoning the murder of abortionists, reversing women’s suffrage, and “perfecting” Jews (I literally cannot) isn’t using her Twitter account to spread peace and light throughout the social media universe, let’s talk about what she IS using it for.

This jerk is using it to mock Malala Yousafzai’s Twitter campaign to #BringBackOurGirls.

#Malala stands in solidarity with Nigerians & people everywhere calling for action to #BringBackOurGirls pic.twitter.com/woAjreav0W

— Malala Fund (@MalalaFund) May 4, 2014

Last week, I wrote about the 300 girls in the Nigerian village of Chibok who were abducted from school, OF ALL PLACES, and are now being sold into sexual, marital slavery for a few dollars a pop by Boko Haram, an Islamist fundamentalist group.   That’s what Malala’s #BringBackOurGirls campaign is all about. It’s about raising awareness of a wildly, disgustingly awful human rights violation that’s happening in Nigeria right now. It’s about starting conversations around the world about gender-based violence and oppression. And of course, it’s about drawing attention to a grossly under-reported story that deserves way more attention than it’s currently receiving.   Basically, Malala wants women not to be abducted and sold into slavery. And when they are, she demands that it be stopped. Ann Coulter does the opposite. In response to Malala’s #BringBackOurGirls campaign, Ms. Coulter tweeted this:

My hashtag contribution to world affairs … pic.twitter.com/Wkb8ozYZFC — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) May 12, 2014

#BringBackOurCountry.

Ann Coulter, you officially win The Worst Person on Twitter Award. I literally cannot with you and your vomit-inducing shenanigans.

What country, exactly, Ms. Coulter, are you looking to bring back? One where its citizens don’t care when girls are targets for violence because they’re receiving an education? One where women are abducted, beaten, raped, sold like cattle — and no one bats an eye?

Because that’s all you’re advocating when you turn a call to bring abducted women home safely into a warped, twisted statement about how fucked up our country is. The United States may not look the way you want it to look — being all full of Jews and voting women and abortionists and whatnot — but this is not an appropriate way to express your distaste.

Not even a little bit.

Luckily, the legions of Twitter users are in agreement, and they’re restoring our collective faith in humanity. With a magical little tool called Photoshop, folks who DON’T think saving abducted Nigerian women is a cause to shit all over, taught Ann Coulter a lesson.

And it’s awesome.

Here are some of the best Ann Coulter-Photoshop-Takedowns. Scroll through and rejoice in the wonderfulness that can still exist in the world, right alongside the bile of people like Ann Coulter.

@CletisStump @Kalaax008 What Coulter does for a ‘living’. pic.twitter.com/pWz1LiDZnn

— ⒿⓄⓁⓉⒾⓃ ⒿⓄⒺ (@fullofbalogna) May 12, 2014

Wildly accurate.

Man, sometimes I’m shocked by the shit @AnnCoulter says for attention. pic.twitter.com/m3QnG2ZJhr — Atchka! (@atchka) May 12, 2014

Wouldn’t that be magical?

Thanks for calling Ann Coulter, and all of her conservaturd followers, on their bullshit, Internet. We love you. Keep fighting the good fight.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ann Coulter Destroys Our Faith in Humanity, Sassy Twitter Users Restore It appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, how many of you are John Green fans? I hope every single one of you raised your hand. He’s basically perfection.

Not only does he write awesome books, but he also posts weekly vlogs on YouTube with his brother, Hank. The two of them cover everything from goofy details about their daily lives to politics and religion. And they do it HYSTERICALLY. Seriously, I never knew I could be so entertained while watching a video about the American healthcare system.

Anyway! One of John Green’s wonderful books, The Fault in Our Stars, has been made into a feature film. It’s hitting theaters next month and stars Shailene Woodley.

So much gorgeousness is happening here, you guys.

Shailene is pretty awesome, making some queer-ish, feminist-y comments about love being independent from gender, doubting our society’s obsession with marriage and monogamy, coming down on Twilight for promoting an unhealthy and abusive relationship dynamic, and advocating for more nuanced, kickass roles for women in movies.

She’s pretty rad.

But! Shailene was recently asked if she identifies as a feminist. And she said no. Cue collective exasperated sigh of disappointment.

Why is this apparently feminist star eschewing the feminist label? Because, it seems, she doesn’t actually understand what being a feminist means.

“No,” said Woodley, when asked if she considered herself a feminist, “because I love men.” She went on to say that feminism means giving undue power to women at the expense of men, an arrangement that wouldn’t be beneficial to anyone.

But, see, that’s not what feminism is. That’s not what it means. Not even a little bit. Feminists aren’t power hungry man-haters looking to depose men from their porcelain thrones of fragile masculinity. We’re not looking to climb over the men, flip the oppression coin, and unfairly win some sort of gender pissing contest where vagina-bearers come out on top.

Feminists are people who come in all shapes, sizes, and genders — some of them are men, go figure! — who believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Just ask Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the TEDx talker who came up with this perfectly coined definition of feminism. This isn’t power grabbing. This isn’t renewed, rearranged sexism.

Feminism is a commitment to ending gender-based oppression. And that’s something that both men and women will benefit from.

Because, let’s be real. We live in a world where gender-based oppression is a huge fucking deal. There’s so much of it, in fact, that every week I’m swamped with potential stories to cover here on The F Word. My email inbox is consistently flooded with article recommendations from friends, family members, and coworkers, all alerting me to the latest crazy incident of racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit to hit the airwaves. There’s always too much to cover on any given day.

This week, for example, we’ve got Monica Lewinsky. Vanity Fair has debuted an exclusive essay by Lewinsky, breaking her decade-long silence regarding her past as the White House whore. “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress,” she writes, going on to express her deep regret and remorse for her affair with former President Bill Clinton — which, she insists, was totally consensual.

But does consent really exist between an intern in her early 20s and her boss — a man who’s not only twice her age, but who’s also the President of the United States? The leader of the motherfucking free world asks you for a blow job, and what do you do? Report him to human resources?

I feel like the U.S. military’s Commander in Chief probably pulls rank on that one, no?

Yes, yes he does.

We live in a world where the man who abused his position of power to score sex from a hot, 20-something staffer, is now getting paid millions of dollars in speaking engagements. Meanwhile, his well-educated, exceptionally capable whore has been unable to land a full-time job ever, AT ALL, because of her “history,” a media sensation that’s transformed her from a person into a joke.

This is a world that needs feminism.

Then, we’ve got Emily Letts, an abortion counselor at a clinic in New Jersey who filmed her surgical abortion and posted it online, to show other women that “there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.”

The short video, featured below, is not graphic or violent, shows only the top half of Letts’ body, and focuses on her emotional and physical experience during the procedure. As a counselor, Letts wanted to share her experience to diffuse some of the frightening misinformation surrounding abortions, modeling one possible solution to a very personal, complicated situation.

Letts’ video and her accompanying essay for Cosmopolitan are helping women across the country come to safe, informed decisions about how to handle an unexpected pregnancy. They’re also helping to chip away at the deeply ingrained stigma our country holds against women who take control of their bodies and reproductive systems.

We live in a world where those are two goals that cause a huge chunk of the United States to respond with anger and vitriol, calling Letts a Godless Baby Slaughterer Witch from Hell. I give it about five minutes before death threats start rolling in.

This is a world that needs feminism.

And then, we’ve got 300 girls in the Nigerian village of Chibok who were abducted from school, OF ALL PLACES, and are now being sold into sexual, marital slavery for a few dollars a pop by Boko Haram, an Islamist fundamentalist group.

#Malala stands in solidarity with Nigerians & people everywhere calling for action to #BringBackOurGirls pic.twitter.com/woAjreav0W

— Malala Fund (@MalalaFund) May 4, 2014

These girls, who range in age from 9 to 15 years old, haven’t been found, which is SHOCKING considering how little media or political attention their abductions have warranted. (Please re-read that sentence and multiply the sarcasm factor by infinity.) And why were they abducted? Because Boko Haram is opposed to women in Nigeria receiving Western educations.

That’s right, folks. We live in a world where girls are violently denied educations and sold into slavery — all while making fewer headlines than Kimye.

This world needs feminism so badly that I have to come up with creative ways to squeeze multiple stories into a single blog post — and I never manage to cover them all. It needs feminism so badly that I had an entire post written about this racist, sexist,  douchebag extraordinaire from Princeton who’s not apologizing for his white privilege, and I SCRAPPED it, because there were too many other stories that were even more important to cover this week.

So, to Shailene Woodley, and to all the other people in the world who are hesitant or unwilling to adopt the feminist identity, please listen.

Feminism is not man-hating. Feminism is not power-grabbing. Feminism is not dangerous, destructive, or harmful.

Feminism is empathy. Feminism is self-love, and love for your fellow human beings. Feminism is working to end the oppression of all people — men, women, queers, people of color, poor people, disabled people — so that all of us can live happier, healthier lives.

Being a feminist means that you believe in social, political, and economic equality between the sexes. Being a feminist means you believe in ending oppression.

And sadly, this column is proof that there aren’t enough of us.

So, please, get next to feminism. Feminists are changing the world for the better. And we need you.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Mingle MediaTV via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear appeared first on Law Street.

The NRA Convention happened last weekend, folks! And you know what that means.

LOTS of ridiculousness for us to talk about.

Specifically, the ridiculousness that Sarah Palin was spewing. When she addressed the cheering crowd of gun enthusiasts, she made a wildly offensive comment equating torture with Christian indoctrination.

“They obviously have information on plots to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them. You can’t make them feel uncomfortable. Not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Oh sure, Sarah, that’s great. Let’s torture people and call it baptism. Because that’s not problematic AT ALL.

A lot of people, conservatives included, are pretty scandalized by this latest sound bite from the Conservative Queen of Ridiculous Sound Bites. She’s talked nonsense about President Obama being a socialist, plotting to plunge the U.S. into a quagmire of evil Communism. She’s said some weird and totally untrue things about death panels being a part of the Affordable Care Act. Not to mention, she’s been unable to pinpoint any specific news publications that she reads, or to be completely in control of the English language — “refudiate” and “misunderestimate” are cases in point.

But! Despite the fact that we should all be totally used to Sarah Palin spewing nonsense, she really outdid herself this time.

Even Lucy is shocked.

Let’s start with the most glaring and obvious issue here — Palin is talking about TORTURE. This isn’t an enhanced interrogation method. This isn’t even fucking legal.

Waterboarding is torture.

And she’s talking about it pretty fucking brazenly. She’s blasé about it, really. Palin talks about torturing people with the same folksy, nonchalant charm that won her a spot on the presidential ticket back in 2008. She could be talking about her kid’s hockey game, for cryin’ out loud.

But she’s not. She’s talking about subjecting human beings to the experience of simulated drowning.

And that’s really disturbing. When a person can talk about torturing other people with such ease, it makes you wonder what they’re really capable of. And I’m not the only one who’s wondering.

The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf brings up an important point—what happens if the wrong Republican gets elected? Will the United States revert back to its Bush Era, barbaric ways? Will torture become the norm once again? What else will become the norm?

Potentially, a lot of scary things. Keep in mind, Palin is a self-professed, devout Christian. She’s a woman who claims to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ — a prophet who preached peace and love above all else. I mean, let’s be real. Dude was the original hippy, am I right?

Yup.

So if she can justify torture — even when she follows a religion that, at its core, preaches peace — what else can she justify?

For starters, she can justify a blatant disrespect for the religion that she claims to cling to so tightly. Her conflation of waterboarding with baptism has been received with a lot of insult and outrage by many in the Christian community. Rod Dreher, the editor of the American Conservative, even termed the comparison “sacrilegious.”

So what are we left with? Sarah Palin has proven herself time and time again to be a lightning rod for controversy. She says crazy things. She does weird shit like deviate from her political career to star on reality shows. She gets a lot of flak.

And some of that flak isn’t well deserved. There’s always been an element of misogyny to the criticism hurled at Palin. The world collectively freaked out when she was announced as John McCain’s running mate back in 2008 — and not because she was wildly unqualified — but because she was a woman, a former beauty queen, a mother of five children. How can she be a heartbeat away from the presidency, the country asked, but not always for the right reasons.

But now? We’re left with a woman who talks about violence with reckless abandon. Who preaches her own religious and political views dogmatically, without actually following them herself. Who panders to crowds of gun-enthusiasts who cheer her on when she talks about torture.

That shit’s dangerous. So what’ll happen if the wrong Republican gets elected?

It’s impossible to say — but one thing’s for sure. Nothing good happens when you give people with a penchant for violence and self-righteousness the keys to the kingdom.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can We Maybe Not Condone Torture, Sarah Palin? appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon folks! How many of you are David Choe fans?

He’s a pretty fascinating dude. A Korean-American hailing from Los Angeles, Choe is an artist, an author, a reality TV star, a podcast host, and he’s spent time in prison. He got his start as a graffiti artist in LA — an angsty, rebellious teenager if ever there was one. He dropped out of high school, spent a few years traveling the world as a hitchhiker, and then returned to spend a few years in formal art school.

Since then, he’s gone on to become a wildly successful and subversive artist. Facebook commissioned him to paint murals in their first Silicon Valley office, making him a millionaire when they paid him in stock options instead of cash. Now, Choe’s work graces every Facebook office, as well as the White House. He stars in a Vice show called “Thumbs Up!” that documents his life as he hitchhikes all over the place, and he hosts a podcast with porn star Asa Akira where they talk about sexy things. Plus — added bonus — he’s a ballin’ gambler who did jail time in Japan for punching a security guard. Truth.

Lovers of bad boys, rejoice. David Choe is kind of your dream. He’s artsy, he’s rebellious, he can’t deal with authority figures, and his entire career is like a giant middle-finger to the concept of respectable and gainful employment.

But don’t get too excited. Because dude doesn’t seem to understand the concept of enthusiastic consent.

In a recent podcast, Choe recounted an eyebrow-raising sexual experience to his cohost, Akira, that he says he had with a masseuse called “Rose.” The podcast went relatively unnoticed — WHY THAT IS I DON’T KNOW (throwing shade at you, patriarchal rape culture that doesn’t bat an eye at this shit) — until xoJane unearthed it and asked the Internet a giant WTF. Thank you, xoJane, for being awesome. You win the Internet this week.

According to Choe’s own account (which he has since stated was an extension of his art and not fact), he was getting a massage and started masturbating right there in front of Rose, without asking her or informing her of his intent to turn this massage into a sexual experience. Here’s how he described the incident:

“It’s dangerous and it’s super self-destructive. I’m at a place and there’s potential for a lawsuit… and she has given me no signs that she’s into me or that this is appropriate behavior. In my head I go, Do you care if I jerk off right now? and it sounds so creepy in my head that I go I can’t say that out loud … So I go back to the chill method of you never ask first, you just do it, get in trouble and then pay the price later.

…So then her hands get off my leg and she just stops … I go ‘Look I’m sorry I can’t help myself — can you just pretend like I’m not doing this and you continue with the massage?’ And she’s like ‘All right’ and she does … I’m like ‘Can I touch your butt?’ and I reach out and touch her butt and she pulls away. She doesn’t want me to touch her butt.”

OK dude, so you should stop it. When someone doesn’t want you to make sexual advances, you need to stop making them. Obviously. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

His cohost, Asa, picked up on that little detail, and clearly says to him in response to this awful story, “So, you raped her.”

He responds:

“With the rape stuff…I mean, I would have been in a lot of trouble right now if I put her hand on my dick and she’s like “F**king stop I’m gonna go call security.” That would have been a much different story. But the thrill of possibly going to jail, that’s what achieved the erection quest.”

So by his own account, this is a guy who describes getting off by pushing someone to do something she’s not comfortable doing. That’s the personification of rape culture, folks. It’s a culture where women’s bodies are viewed as objects, as property to be handled and exploited. Women don’t have to say yes for other people to feel entitled to us, and even when we say no, it’s often not enough.

Whether or not Choe is confessing to actual rape, he describes knowingly pushing Rose to do things she said no to. And that’s really, really not OK.

Folks, rape doesn’t always look the same. There are lots of different ways to rape someone, or to be raped. It doesn’t have to be a strange man in a dark alley. It doesn’t have to be someone who beats you. It doesn’t have to be someone who’s got a knife to your throat.

Sometimes rape is less dramatic. Sometimes it’s a partner who doesn’t take no for an answer. Sometimes it’s a person who takes advantage of you when you’re disempowered. And sometimes, it’s a random creep in a massage studio.

None of these things are, or ever will be, OK. No means no, David Choe. Fucking stop it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [jm3 on Flickr via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Means No, David Choe appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon folks! Now that our collective excitement over the Blood Moon has subsided and the moon has returned to its normal, non-bloody state, we’re going to take some time to talk about everyone’s favorite things. Rush Limbaugh wants them to stop staring at him, and Microsoft wants them to keep you from getting fat. You know where I’m going with this.

We’re talking about boobs this morning.

High school student Megan Grassel is the world’s latest boob-centric entrepreneur, having recently opened a small business called Yellowberry, which allegedly sells non-sexual bras for young girls.

Megan got the idea for the lovely little company when she took her baby sister bra shopping. According to Megan, she was “appalled” by the selection of bras available for her sister’s age group. Filled with push-up padding and covered in sequins, she found the bra selection to be hypersexual and totally inappropriate for her tweenaged sister.

So, like any budding entrepreneur, Megan saw a business opportunity. She recognized a gap in the market — non-sexual bras for younger girls, according to her — and she decided to fill it. One uber-successful Kickstarter campaign later, Yellowberry was born. The company sells neon-colored cotton bras, with no padding or sequins, aimed at girls between 11 and 15 years old. At $42.95 a pop, the store has already sold out. Megan’s a one-woman business success.

Now, before anything else, let’s talk about how this is pretty awesome on a bunch of levels. Women-owned businesses are awesome. Products that are made by and for women are awesome. Megan’s entrepreneurial spirit, smarts, and business acumen are super impressive and I applaud her for it.

However.

Let’s talk about the reason why she started Yellowberry in the first place.

Megan was freaked out by the bras that existed in the market. She deemed padding and sequins too sexual. But what if you’re just a fan of sequin-covered, sparkly, happy things? What about sequins makes bras sexual? What about padding?

The fact that bras are used to cover and support breasts. The breasts themselves are what make bras sexual. Not the fact that they’re covered in sequins. Not the fact that they’re padded. Taken alone, those facts are just descriptors added onto a piece of cloth and (maybe) wire. But Megan and her thoughts on how breasts should and shouldn’t be presented are what sexualized those bras.

And that’s kind of an issue. While Megan’s busy being appalled at how inappropriate these padded, sequined bras are, she’s simultaneously demonizing young girls who might like to wear them.

There’s an element of slut-shaming here, and a fear around the concept of adolescent sexuality. If these bras are so disgustingly hypersexual, what does that say about the girl who chooses to sport it? Presumably, that she’s some kind of oversexed harlot — not just a girl who might think sequins are fun.

Clearly, glitter is the best.

Folks, I know what it’s like to be an oversexed young girl. I started growing boobs when I was in fourth grade. Everyone — from the kids in school right down to my own parents — couldn’t wrap their heads around the fact that I was young and had breasts.

They were discussed at length. What I could wear because of them, what I couldn’t wear because of them, how I should stand, where I should go, who I should talk to. My breasts were simultaneously an asset and a huge threat. They made me cool. They made me slutty. They made me precocious and dangerous and fast.

So whenever anyone starts getting anxious about young girls and how overly sexual their breasts are, I get concerned.

What are we really saying to our teenaged girls when we shame them for wanting to wear padded, sequined bras? What message are we sending when a bra store called Yellowberry pops up, whose existence is a direct reaction to societal anxieties around adolescent breasts and sexuality?

We’re saying that young women, their bodies, and their sexualities are threatening. Their breasts need to be tamed. Their sexuality needs to be managed and contained.

So, Megan Grassel, I applaud your entrepreneurship and your colorful, no-frills bras. But I hope you’ll reevaluate your motivation for making them.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Ralf Roletschek via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Feminist Is Your Bra? appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, women’s access to safe abortion services is circling the drain. Between 2011 and 2013, state lawmakers passed more restrictions on abortion than they in the last decade combined.

That’s right. In two years, more abortion restrictions were passed than in the previous ten. That’s some serious shit.

It’s looking like this is going to be a trend that continues into 2014, so let’s take a moment and remind all the anti-choicers out there what actually happens when you prevent women from accessing safe abortions. HINT: They do not get fewer abortions.

1. They seek unsafe abortions.

Cue gasps all around — what’s the first thing women who can’t access safe abortions do? They go find unsafe abortions. Women duck into back alley, sketch-tastic, unsterile abortion clinics for the privilege of having some hack rough up their insides. Often, that same hack will rape her.

Regardless of how much her insides are at risk for getting raped and destroyed, a woman who wants an abortion will still go get one, even if it’s illegal and unsafe. This is reality, conservaturds. Wrap your heads around it.

2. They buy abortion pills on the black market.

Can’t find a dirty sketchball to perform your abortion? No problem. There are plenty of safe, effective abortion pills you can take in the comfort of your own home.

Except! Prescriptions for these pills must be administered by an abortion provider — so if you can’t find one, you’re shit out of luck. Unless, of course, you make an appearance on the black market. Desperate and optionless women are buying these pills on the black market every day, but many of them are counterfeit, rendering them useless at best and harmful at worst. Not to mention, these abortion pills are a bit complicated to administer. Take them incorrectly, and you’ll find yourself in the emergency room.

Again, these risks are stopping no one. Abortions continue to happen.

3. They cross borders to get unsafe abortions.

Don’t have an abortion provider in your city, county, or state? Cross the border into a less anti-feminist state! Or, better yet, head to Mexico. Except abortions are really hard to access wherever you’re headed as well, most likely, and so there’s a good chance you’ll end up in an unsafe situation anyway.

And now, you’re further from home, still at risk for assault or procedure botching, and you’re out a whole bunch more money because traveling is expensive.

Once again, abortions continue to happen.

4. They deliberately harm themselves to induce a miscarriage.
Out come the coat hangers! Seriously, though, women will resort to deliberately getting punched in the stomach, beaten up, or thrown down the stairs in order to induce a miscarriage. Clearly, this is not a very safe or reliable way to self-abort. No one cares. It still happens.

5. They wind up unable to conceive later.

This detail is like a goody bag extra, because botched abortions are just the gift that keeps on giving! When women terminate pregnancies using any of the unsafe methods listed above, they often wind up with serious, permanent damage to their reproductive systems. That means chronic health issues, and often, the inability to conceive when they do actually want to have babies.

This is the definition of not having control over your own body — being forced to have a child when you don’t want to, facing injury or death if you choose to defy that directive, and being unable to bear children when you do want to as a consequential punishment.

This shit happened all the time before Roe v. Wade, and as more and more restrictions are placed on that landmark ruling, it’s continuing to happen with increasing frequency today.

To all the anti-choice agitators and conservative lawmakers who’d like to take away a woman’s right to choose, please note:

Denying women access to safe abortions DOES NOT reduce the number of abortions that happen. Those fetuses you’re so concerned about will still be aborted. All it does is put the women who carry them at greater risk for injury or death. Abortions will happen with or without your legal blessing, Right-wing legislators. Consider this your reality check.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Things That Happen When Women Can’t Access Safe Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, folks! Time for your weekly dosage of anti-feminist bullshit! On the menu today is Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation owned by a family of religious zealots that doesn’t want to cover your birth control.

Also, it doesn’t want any other employer-sponsored health insurance to cover your birth control either.

So, keep your legs closed?

I know, I know, conservatives bat this shit around all the goddamn time. They’re constantly challenging a woman’s right to choose, trying to flip or amend the shit out of Roe v. Wade to resurrect the age of the coat hanger, slash birth control coverage, nix preventive care exams, and pretty much destroy all the basic healthcare measures that are associated with vaginas.

And so far, they haven’t managed to deny all of us some modicum of control over our own bodies. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a blue state with a decent level of economic privilege are still visiting the OB-GYN each year. But.

Hobby Lobby is making us really fucking nervous.

This obnoxious fuck of a company is suing the Department of Health and Human Services on the grounds that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act infringes on their constitutional right to religious freedom. According to Hobby Lobby, since they’re owned by devout Christians, their health insurance benefits shouldn’t have to cover contraception for employees.

To make this even more awesome, Hobby Lobby is basing these claims on some crap-tastic pseudo-science about “abortifacients.” The company is already covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA, but is holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception, and two forms of emergency birth control.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims they’re making about those devices, none of them are abortion pills. Which, for the record, are totally on the market and widely used. These just aren’t them.

Literally no one is a fan of this lawsuit.

For all the people who are in favor of women controlling their own bodies and sexual health, this is obviously some bullshit. Birth control and emergency contraception are basic tools that allow women to maintain their sexual health and control their destinies. Those are rights that shouldn’t be up for debate.

But what’s really surprising is who else isn’t a fan of this suit.

The entire business world.

That’s right! All the rich, conservative, white men who run the United States’ Fortune 500 companies have failed to file a single amicus brief in Hobby Lobby’s favor. They’re just as freaked out by this attempt at religious discrimination as feminists are.

Why? Because it would fuck shit up, business-wise.

Hobby Lobby’s case is built on the argument that a corporation isn’t separate from its owners. By their logic, since Hobby Lobby is owned by devout Christians, the company itself is also a devoutly Christian entity whose religious freedoms can be violated. This move conflates the business and its owners, making them one in the same.

And that’s really dangerous for business owners all across the country. The Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have filed a ton of amicus briefs opposing Hobby Lobby, citing how important it is to keep corporations separate from their owners.

This principle is called the “corporate veil,” and essentially, it protects its owners from liability. Since a corporation has a different set of rights and obligations than its owners, an owner can’t be held personally responsible for a company oversight, and vice versa.

But Hobby Lobby wants to have it both ways. They’d like to hang on to that liability protection, while simultaneously doing whatever the fuck they want.

So, at the end of the day, this lawsuit is a problem for everyone. It’s a problem for business owners who don’t want the corporate veil to get ripped to shreds. It’s a problem for women — specifically those employed at Hobby Lobby — who need their birth control to be covered under their health insurance. It’s also a problem for literally anyone whose behavior or existence violates someone’s religious beliefs.

If Hobby Lobby wins this suit, it would set a precedent that could make widespread discrimination totally legal. If the owner of a restaurant doesn’t like gay people, he or she can refuse to serve them. If a doctor doesn’t like abortion, he or she can refuse to prescribe birth control. If a landlord doesn’t like Jewish people, he or she could refuse to rent to them.

Virtually any kind of discrimination could be protected under a veil of religious freedom, making each individual person — and their company — a law book unto themselves.

This shit is ridiculous, am I right?

Religious conservatives, you do you. You be religious! You proselytize against birth control all you want. But stop trying to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to treat those of us who aren’t on your team like crap.

We’re seriously over it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image Courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wants to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Belle Knox, the “Duke Porn Star,” broke a few weeks ago, and for a little while I tried to avoid writing about it, because there were a lot of voices already getting in on the debate. But then I saw that this bright young woman was receiving death threats, and that her classmates were trying to get her kicked out of Duke — and that was enough to push me over the edge.

Before I get into the specifics about why I wholeheartedly support Knox, I want to catch up any of you who have been living under a rock for the last few weeks. Belle Knox is a pornstar. She’s also an 19-year-old freshman at Duke University, majoring in sociology and gender studies. She got into porn because it was something that interested her, and as a way to pay for Duke’s extremely expensive tuition. She was outed by a classmate who recognized her, and quickly became the best worst-kept secret on campus. Then, The Chronicle, Duke’s student newspaper, did a profile on her using the pseudonym “Lauren.” As national news outlets got wind of the story, she wrote a few of her own pieces on xojane.com, including one where she published her porn alter-ego name, “Belle Knox.”

Since then, her face and real name, which I will not publish out of respect for her privacy, have been released. She’s gone on a few shows to defend her decision, despite the death threats and ire she and her family have both received. Knox has shared some of the more brutal ones, including:

• You should slit your wrists and die, you stupid bitch
• We are going to throw garbage at her every fucking day!!! let’s do it GREEK FRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• The school should either expel her, or we will take matters into our own hands and make this fuck up suffer. cheers!
• FUCK YOU!!!! IF I SEE U WALKING ON CAMPUS I WILL KICK YOU IN THE FACE!

I, on the other hand, respect Knox deeply. And here are four reasons why the people who are making death threats to her need to go to hell themselves.

4. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

This is actually a point that Knox made herself in one of her XoJane pieces, “I’m Finally Revealing my Name and Face as the Duke Pornstar.” But I think it’s such an excellent point that I feel the need to expand on it. Knox pointed out that porn is a $13.3 billion industry each year in the United States. That’s more than the revenue of ABC, NBC, and CBS combined. While estimates vary due to a lack of desire to self-report, a $13.3 billion industry doesn’t become that way because only a few people are partaking. I’d bet you 50 bucks that at least a few of those people sending death threats to Belle Knox have watched porn at some point in their lives.

There is a huge double standard here, because how in the world do the people who are sending Knox these death threats think that porn is made? They want to watch it, but they don’t want to have a porn star next door. They want to enjoy the industry without actually acknowledging how it’s made. They want to pretend that the women they drool over don’t exist, because that’s easier than acknowledging that they’re someone’s daughter or sister or friend. It’s easier than acknowledging that they’re, god forbid, intelligent, autonomous, real human beings.

3. This was Knox’s private decision.

You might argue with me on this one. You might say that because she made the choice to partake in such a public industry, that it was no longer a private decision. But she made an alter ego for a reason. She made an alter ego because she, like anyone else, is still entitled to a private life. And when her real birth name was outed, she lost that ability.

But most importantly, her family also lost their privacy. Her family, at the very least, deserves the ability to live out their lives privately.

Why a woman turns to porn is her own decision. Now Belle Knox has been forthcoming about her reasons because she’s been asked. She explained that she does it because she likes it, because she feels empowered by her work, and because she wanted to pay for her education. She has already shared her reasoning with the public, and that was her choice. But some commenters are telling her that that reasoning isn’t good enough, like the ladies of The View:

It’s one thing to out her and demand that she explain why she wants to a be a porn star, even though that is her private decision. But to tell her that her reasoning isn’t good enough, and demand that she further justify her private decision is ridiculous.

2. There’s a bigger conversation here and that’s the exorbitant price of college tuition. 

Belle Knox is right — $60,000 is ridiculous. Most families cannot afford to send their daughter to school for $60,000. Now critics say that if she couldn’t afford it, then she shouldn’t have gone to Duke. She should have gone to a cheaper state school. But even state schools are getting up there. Average student loan debt is $29,000. About 12 million students each year take out money to finance their college education.

And Duke is an excellent school. She deserves to be there if she got in. We as a society cannot accept the fact that the only people who deserve to go to good schools are the ones who can pay for it.

Belle Knox could have chosen a different way to pay for her education, sure. She could have taken out loans or done other work. And I don’t think she made the right choice, but it was hers to make. And mostly I think the fact that a woman would even turn to porn because her tuition is so high is much more interesting than the porn itself. That should never be a choice that a young woman who wants to get an education has to make.

1. People are saying that Belle Knox is anti-Feminist. 

What’s pissing me off the most is the way that so-called feminists are treating Belle Knox. Now there are a lot of arguments out there about exactly what being a feminist means, and who is a feminist. Now is neither the time nor the place for any of that, but I think we can all agree on the fact that feminism is not and has never been one size fits all.

So to all the people out there who are saying Belle Knox isn’t a feminist…who gave you that right? Who gave you the right to define what feminism means to her. She feels empowered by what she is doing. She is a strong, well-spoken, incredibly intelligent young woman. She can tell you what makes her feel empowered. She can make that judgment call for herself. No one gave you the right to decide what empowers her. 

So carry on, Belle Knox. And be careful. Because there are a lot of people who want to take you out. But I can assure you, they’re all dead wrong.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Image courtesy of [Alan via Flickr]

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 4 Reasons I Support Belle Knox, the “Duke Porn Star” appeared first on Law Street.

Twenty-something women of the world, are you married yet? Because according to Susan Patton, a.k.a. The Princeton Mom, you should be.

In her new book, Marry Smart: Advice for Finding THE ONE, Patton urges young, college attending women to spend their undergrad years husband hunting. According to her, finding a mate before graduation is imperative, because otherwise, your eggs will dry up in your ovaries and you’ll die alone with your seven cats. Or something like that.

Princeton Mom is all kinds of fascinating, and not just because she’s depressingly anti-feminist. Let’s run down the top five reasons why Susan Patton should be your new conservaturd celebrity obsession, mmkay?

1.) Lady is a tiger.

As a Princeton graduate, and a mother of two more, Patton is completely obsessed with orange and black. Her Upper East Side apartment is dripping with it — she’s got tiger tails hanging on the walls, orange and black craft projects strewn about, and she’s currently dreaming of a second wedding on the Princeton campus complete with orange roses.

If she wasn’t busy having New York Magazine features written about her and making appearances on the Today Show, I’d say Patton peaked during her college years. But maybe this tiger is just finding her stripes?

2.) Patton is recently divorced, which is totally a bummer.

She prefers not to talk about her former husband, although he “went to a college of almost no name recognition.” Ouch. Anyway, as it turns out, she frittered away her undergrad years at Princeton, you know, actually getting an education, and then wound up marrying whoever she happened to be dating at 31 in a race against the fertility clock.

I feel like it’s not a coincidence that that didn’t work out, no? Husband hunters, keep that in mind while you’re tracking down marriageable sperm donors. Marrying for the sake of your fertility timeline does not guarantee wedded bliss.

3.) The Princeton Mom is not COMPLETELY anti-feminist.

As a young woman, she eschewed immediate marriage and motherhood in favor of getting a top-notch education and developing her career. She even went so far as to legally emancipate herself from her “women don’t need to be educated” parents so she could attend Princeton.

Points, Princeton Mom. Feminist points.

4.) But don’t get too excited. She’s still pretty anti-feminist.

She doesn’t think date rape is a thing, and she thinks it’s a woman’s responsibility to keep herself out of situations where she might be violated. After all, we can’t expect men to act responsibly! Penises have a mind of their own, clearly. She totally freaked out Savannah Guthrie with this one.

Oh Mama Patton, I was rooting for you for a minute there.

5.) The Princeton Mom might be a tiger, but she’s also a cougar.

Embracing her newly found singledom, she’s dating multiple men at once, at least two of them Princeton grads. Free of the pressure of biology, she’s dating men who are fun and sexy — not potential sperm donors — and she’s having an awesome time doing it.

She just doesn’t really think YOU should be doing that, because, tick tock ladies. Those eggs of yours WILL NOT last forever.

So what do we make of the Princeton mom? Well, she’s a beacon of anti-feminist nonsense, the kind of self-help guru who sets women back a few generations.

She’s also kind of a badass. She’s unapologetic in her opinions, she’s going after it with all she’s got, and she’s feeling awesome about it.

So you do you, Princeton Mom! You be your fierce, tiger self.

The rest of you, don’t listen to her craze-tastic advice unless you’re inventing some kind of drinking game out of her TV appearances. In that case, please share.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Andrew_Writer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Reasons Why Princeton Mom Is Your New Anti-Feminist She-ro appeared first on Law Street.

Hello loves! How many of you went to CPAC last week?

Hopefully none of you. But! A whole bunch of young people did — obviously as props to debunk the claim that the GOP is full of rich, white men. (I’m just kidding.) (Kind of not really.)

Anyway! As a result of this Millennial pilgrimage to the land of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, the NRCC took the opportunity to ask its youngins’ why they identified as conservatives. The results are laughable.

First of all — the most concrete piece of new information we’ve learned from this little exercise is that Republicans can’t count. While the NRCC claims to have asked 37 Millennials why they were fans of the Grand Old Party, there are 45 individuals pictured on their countdown. Likewise, the Independent Journal Review, which reposted the piece, claims 26 individuals in the headline, 37 individuals in the slug, and pictures only 33.

Learn your 1, 2, 3s here, people. What kind of nonsense is this?

No, we’re not giving you one more chance.

So, clearly, we’ve established that this little study is anything but scientific.  Also, not well produced. If the Republican question-askers and statisticians can’t even keep their numbers straight, shouldn’t your standard, run of the mill copy editor notice something’s up? You’d think so. You’d also be wrong.

Anyway, mathematical challenges aside, let’s let these young Republicans speak for themselves, shall we? Here are a few reasons why they’re counting themselves conservative this year.

That’s pretty vague. Courtesy of NRCC.org

Even vaguer. Courtesy of NRCC.org

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Really?

Am I the only one who’s noticing that something’s up here? None of these reasons are actually reasons. They’re just meaningless buzzwords.

You’re conservative because…taxes? Do you mean that you like how the Republican party has rigged the system so that gazillionaires and corporations get tax breaks, while YOU, lowly 20-something, are paying taxes through your nose? If that’s what you meant by, “I’m conservative because taxes,” then I guess you’re in the right place. A self-defeating one, mind you.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

And what about fiscal responsibility? These folks are on the tax train too — as in, they’d like to pay fewer of them. They’re all kinds of pissed off about having their tax dollars funneled into the social safety net, because no one wants to subsidize those lazy, mooching, poor people! The blasphemy!

I’m guessing they all have health insurance, and aren’t particularly worried about falling ill and going bankrupt. Also, they probably aren’t aware that the group who benefits most from the social safety net is, in fact, their grandparents.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Then, of course, there are the Jobby McJobersons, who are conservatives because jobs. I’m guessing they want more of them? If so, maybe they should be a little more specific about the kinds of jobs they’re looking for.

Because among job creators in the GOP, new positions typically don’t pay a living wage or include benefits. Take Walmart, for example. Owned by the Waltons, an incredibly rich and incredibly conservative family, it’s the single largest employer in the country. Its employees also hold food drives for each other, because they don’t actually make enough money to buy food themselves.

Walmart holding canned food drive for its own underpaid employees http://t.co/SkUrh7tP53 pic.twitter.com/h9ZmJHfekZ

— Scott Keyes (@smkeyes) November 18, 2013

I feel like those aren’t the kinds of jobs that’ll pay off your student loans, young CPAC attendees.

There were a few young people who were more thoughtful in their responses. Take this girl, for example, who’s being really clear about how much she’d like to preserve her privilege as a white, cis-gender, straight, Christian woman, at the expense of queers, people of color, and poor folks.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Then there’s this guy, who’s affiliated with the GOP because he’s disappointed in Obama’s performance as President. You know what, love? I totally agree with you. Obama hasn’t been able to create the hope and change he promised. A huge factor in that, though, is the unwillingness of Republicans to cooperate with him on literally anything.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Now, I’m all for listening to young Republicans as the reflect on and explain why they identify as conservatives. But that’s not what’s happening here. These 20-somethings aren’t reflecting on much, and they aren’t explaining anything at all. They’re mindlessly spewing one-word, canned talking points.

And that’s not helping anybody. You need to improve your communication skills here, CPAC’ers! You should take a lesson from these awesome people, who are fabulous at explaining their political alignment. Notice how they all use full sentences and complete thoughts.

PS – Handsome person in the top right corner, give me a call sometime, mmkay? Courtesy of Tumblr.com

So, young Republicans, do me a favor. Get your fucking acts together. Think more critically about why you identify as conservative, and give us more than the same tired, one-word answers a million people used before you. You don’t need to understand a damn thing about life or politics to write “Jobs” on a piece of paper.

And we need you to understand things. Because you’re pretty close to taking over this show yourselves.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Young Conservatives Actually Have No Clue Why They’re Conservative appeared first on Law Street.

Loves, how many of you watched the Oscars on Sunday night?

I did, after a fair amount of effort finagling a live-stream feed onto my TV. Thanks for the complication, Time Warner!

Anyway, if you stayed up to watch the end — or if you’ve been on the internet in the last 48 hours — you’ll know that Matthew McConaughey won Best Actor. Moment of silence for Leonardo DiCaprio, who’s having nightmares right now.

This what Leonardo DiCaprio’s nightmares look like #Oscars pic.twitter.com/yhkAkgDxSP

— Joel Pavelski (@joelcifer) March 3, 2014

Anyway, conservatives are freaking out about McConaughey’s Oscar acceptance speech. In it, the first thank you he threw out into the void was to God, making him one of only four actors to mention the Almighty in an Oscar acceptance speech over the last 12 years.

“First off,” said McConaughey, “I want to thank God, because that’s who I look up to. He has graced my life with opportunities that I know are not of my hand or of any other human hand. He has shown me that it’s a scientific fact that gratitude reciprocates … When you’ve got God, you’ve got a friend, and that friend is you.”

D’aw. Conservatives are drooling over this show of Christian religiosity. Please note, no one gave half a shit about the other three God-thankers in recent Oscar history — because none of them were white, Texas boys with a charming Southern drawl.

Anyway! Here’s what the conserva-turds have to say about Matthew’s Godly mention.

Rick Perry tweeted out Monday morning:

Texas boy counting his blessings. http://t.co/O6fbEN4QrF

— Rick Perry (@GovernorPerry) March 3, 2014

Tea Party darling Michelle Malkin proclaimed via Twitter:

Silence a Hollywood liberal: Give thanks to God. http://t.co/FYOMiCoQFg

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 3, 2014

And of course, not to be left out, Fox News chimed in with an unusually straight-news style headline: “Matthew McConaughey one of few to thank God in Oscar acceptance speech.”

Folks, the conservative Right’s excitement over McConaughey’s God speech is interesting for a few reasons.

First of all — holy racism, Batman. I mentioned that there were three other Oscar winners who thanked God in their acceptance speeches in recent years. Those actors are Denzel Washington, Jennifer Hudson, and Forrest Whitaker. They’re all Black. And no conservative pundits cared even a little, tiny bit, when they mentioned God on Oscar night.

Some would argue that’s because African-Americans are statistically more likely to be devout Christians. When stereotypes abound about church-going, Gospel-singing Black folk, who’s really surprised when Black actors start talking about God? Clearly, no one.

But I’d say that’s not the real reason conservatives are so much more excited about Matthew McConaughey’s Godliness than Jennifer Hudson’s. What’s actually going on here?

Conservatives see Matthew McConaughey as one of them. And they’re all kinds of pumped that someone on their team is a visible member of the Hollywood glitterati.

After all, McConaughey’s wearing the uniform. He’s white, straight, cis-gendered, and charmingly Southern. He’d fit right in if he headed back to the Bible Belt—he’s even related to a Confederate soldier. He’s a perfect poster boy.

But it goes deeper than that. The most important aspect of McConaughey’s conservative appeal is his narcissism.

After he finished thanking God, Matthew launched into a weird diatribe about how he’s his own hero. It was kind of bizarre, and if you try really hard, you can squeeze some inspirational juice out of it along the lines of, “You’re your own toughest competition, be the best you can be!”

Except you’d have to try really, really hard. The clearest takeaway here is that Matthew McConaughey is really obsessed with himself. And he kind of always has been. Remember when he got married, and all he could talk about was how lucky his wife was to have him as her Prince Charming? Barf.

Conservatives are notorious for their narcissism. That’s exactly the trait that allows them to vilify poor people, single mothers, women, and abortion providers. It’s how they came up with that term, “personal responsibility,” and used it to dismantle the social safety net. It’s the reasoning behind their destructive opposition to basic human needs, like universal healthcare, affordable housing, and nutritious food.

Conservatives are conservative because their politics lack empathy. They’re unable to put themselves into someone else’s shoes. It’s easy to fight for a ban on abortion when you’ve never been faced with an unwanted pregnancy. It’s even easier to claim that universal healthcare is communism when you’ve never been denied access to medical care because of your inability to cough up the cash.

It’s fairly common for conservatives to switch teams when they’re faced with shitty situations. Take this guy for example, who worked on the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008. He went from a Republican staffer to an Obamacare activist — after he was diagnosed with cancer and denied health insurance.

Republicans often can’t see the harm their policies cause until they’re in the middle of their own self-inflicted crosshairs. Even then, if they switch teams, it’s primarily for self-preservation. Right-wing politics is all about narcissistic self-interest. I do not like this, their policies scream like a toddler throwing a tantrum. And it’s imperative that I get what I want.

This pretty much sums up Right-wing politics.

So, it makes sense for people like Michelle Malkin and Rick Perry to be excited about Matthew McConaughey’s Oscar speech. God talk aside, it was about as narcissistic as you can get. And that resonates with conservatives.

So, while your Internet is blowing up about the Godliness of McConaughey, please remember that his speech wasn’t reflective of Christian values like peace and charity. It’s no coincidence that conservatives are excited about it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Denise Cross Photography via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Matthew McConaughey Is Narcissistic at the Oscars, Becomes Conservative Hero appeared first on Law Street.

How many of you remember Emi and Hannah, my super cute friends who live in Virginia? Last time we saw them, they were cautiously excited about the prospect of Va. striking down its gay marriage ban.

Well, they’re pretty happy right now. U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen struck down the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage just in time for Valentine’s Day. Yay!

Congratulatory baby goat kisses for Emi! Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

I promised y’all (that one’s for you, Southern readers) that we’d check in with Emi and Hannah again as this case progressed, and I wasn’t about to disappoint you. Seriously — as soon as news about Judge Wright Allen’s decision dropped, I started getting social media requests for a follow-up story about these two lovebirds. Apparently everyone agrees with me that they’re the cutest.

So! I asked Emi and Hannah what their reaction to the news was, and it took over a week for them to respond! Don’t worry, though, they had a good reason. Here’s what Hami (celebrity couple name-merge suggestions?) told me:

“I think I’ve been avoiding sending you a ‘response to the news’ because I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop,” said Hannah. “With everything on hold as the opposition appeals, my pessimist side is waiting until something ‘real’ happens until it commits to any sort of celebration.”

Hannah and her cat are only mildly amused. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

LOL GUYS. Hami was totally right. Literally 15 hours ago, The Virginian Pilot reported that appeals have been filed. Le sigh.

Appeals were filed on behalf of Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk, George Schaefer, and State Registrar of Vital Records, Janet Rainey — two Virginia court clerks who don’t like to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And, since Judge Wright Allen delayed implementation of her ruling until after all appeals have been heard, same-sex marriage still isn’t actually recognized in the state of Virginia. Thanks, guys.

But, for all the irritation and inconvenience this delay is causing, it’s also providing us with some serious entertainment value. The reasoning behind the opposition’s anti-gay-marriage stance is truly hilarious.

If Hami’s pig Alice wasn’t busy being so cute, she’d be laughing so hard right now. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

The lawyers trying to stem the tide of Southern gay weddings are citing Virginia’s 400-year tradition of heterosexual marriage as a reason for upholding the ban on same-sex marriages. They’re just not traditional enough to be allowed, apparently.

You know what else is in Virginia’s 400-year tradition? They’ve got an impressive history of blocking school integration in favor of racial segregation, stopping interracial marriage, and denying women the right to attend the Virginia Military Institute. And that’s not even mentioning the Native American genocide that essentially served as Virginia’s debutante ball.

Also, SLAVERY.

Hami’s cats are throwing some major shade for the obvious omission of SLAVERY. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Let’s all take a moment and collectively laugh (to keep from crying) at Virginia’s ridiculous attempt at painting its traditional history as something to proudly preserve. Come on, guys, you’re better than that.

But maybe they’re not, because it actually gets worse. The super awesome attorneys representing Schaefer and Rainey are also arguing that marriage should only be granted to couples who can procreate. By this reasoning, tons of existing, straight marriages would be considered null and void. Couples who are infertile, who include a post-menopausal woman, or who just plain old don’t want to have kids would all be locked out of the marriage club.

This is just getting silly.

Almost as silly as Emi in a corn suit. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Amid all this ridiculousness, it would be easy to get discouraged. But Emi and Hannah have it all in perspective.

“While this ruling could make life a lot simpler for Emi and me, it doesn’t mean that magically everything is fixed for queers in this country,” said Hannah. “I’ll be happy to have our marriage recognized and to get some of the very practical legal elements that go along with that, [but] this isn’t by any stretch of the imagination the final goal. Homophobia isn’t over any more than sexism is over or racism is over or classism is over.”

PREACH. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Right on, lovebird. Marriage is just one piece in a giant and complex puzzle, in which queers, women, people of color, and poor people are systematically marginalized in the U.S. I’ve written a ton about why marriage is kind of a shitty deal, and about how fucked queers still are, even if marriage equality is achieved. Wedding bells don’t change the fact that we’re statistically more likely to be unemployed, impoverished, and incarcerated than our straight counterparts. These are still giant problems.

And non-queers, or super privileged queers, sometimes forget about that.

“I actually had one of my lovely, kind, straight friends make a comment along those lines,” said Hannah. “[T]hat once gay marriages are legal and recognized throughout the country, the ‘war’ will have been won.”

Nope. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Not so, loves. The war will be far from over. Until queer kids have stopped dominating the homeless population, until trans women of color stop getting murdered, until gay-bashing stops being a thing the war won’t be over.

In the meantime, though, let’s all shop at Heart Moss Farm and laugh at Virginia’s ridiculousness to keep from crying, OK?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

All images courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Our Favorite Gay Couple in Virginia Might Have a Legally Recognized Marriage Soon! appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, what is going on with Woody Allen these days?

In case you’ve missed all the drama amid the #SochiFailympics, here’s a quick recap of what’s been happening. Woody Allen was given a lifetime achievement award at The Golden Globes last month, to which his ex, Mia Farrow, and her son, Ronan, responded with this:

Time to grab some icecream & switch over to #GIRLS

— mia farrow (@MiaFarrow) January 13, 2014

Missed the Woody Allen tribute – did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?

— Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) January 13, 2014

Some passive aggressive Twitter rage, I see! Understandable, considering Woody Allen allegedly molested Dylan Farrow, daughter and sister of the two subtweeting Farrows. Of course, the world exploded. Along with the responses of a handful of celebrities and everyone on Twitter, Dylan spoke out for herself.

Detailing the trauma of childhood sexual assault at the hands of a celebrity in an open letter published in the New York Times, Dylan wrote, “[I] imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter…Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse.”

That’s some powerful, powerful shit. Not that it shut down any of the men’s rights, Woody Allen apologists for half a second.

First there was this op-ed, by Woody Allen’s BFF. Its nauseating smugness actually makes me want to barf. Then, there was Woody Allen’s own response, in which he minimizes and distorts his own douchebaggery to smear his ex Mia as a loony-tune woman scorned. On the same day, Vanity Fair published a list of fully fact-checked, indisputable truths about the highly contested case, and then, one day later, Dylan issued her own re-response.

Phew. It’s been a rough few weeks for the Farrows and the Allens and all of us in between. You think your own family feuds are intense? At least they don’t play out in the news, am I right?

THANK GOODNESS.

But despite the fact that I’m trying to keep this light, this Woody Allen/Dylan Farrow fiasco is no joke. This is some serious, serious shit. Especially because what really happened in that attic is so hotly contested.

Folks, a lot has been written about this case, and here’s what most of it comes down to — none of us were there. As third-party bystanders, all of our information is secondhand. So, we each have to choose what to believe, for ourselves.

You can choose to believe Woody and his story about a vengeful, manipulative ex-girlfriend who’s willing to psychologically abuse her children in order to get back at him.

Or, you can believe Dylan and her story about a creepy father who assaulted her and then proceeded to launch a smear campaign against his victim and her family.

I know which story I find more plausible.

But, these conflicting stories aside, we’re still left with some simple, disturbing facts. Even if nothing at all had happened between Dylan and Woody — even if there were no allegations — he still wound up in a romantic relationship with his girlfriend’s daughter. Woody was 56 and dating Mia Farrow when he got involved with Soon-Yi, the 19-year-old adopted sister of his children Ronan and Dylan.

That’s fucking creeptastic.

Despite the widespread reports that Woody and Soon-Yi enjoy a healthy, egalitarian marriage, Allen’s willingness to get involved with his girlfriend’s teenaged, adopted daughter speaks volumes about his character.

He’s a man who either has no sense of boundaries within a relationship, or doesn’t seriously concern himself with them. He’s a man with poor judgment and little impulse control. He’s a man who cares little for anything but his own selfish pursuit of happiness. He isn’t bothered by the disturbing, unequal power dynamic that’s present in a relationship between a 56-year-old cultural kingpin and a 19-year-old adoptee. And he doesn’t feel a mental and emotional gulf between himself and someone more than 30 years his junior — a gulf that should absolutely be present.

And he’s celebrated. Woody Allen is one of the most beloved culture creators of our generation — this man, who’s undeniably fucked up in ways that seriously harmed those closest to him. Meanwhile, Dylan — the victim here — has to live in the shadows, emotionally scarred, or risk being attacked, shamed, and smeared.

So, what does our cultural obsession with Woody Allen say about us? I’ll tell you.

It says that we don’t mind a creepy, emotionally stunted, hurtful, abusive man, so long as he’s rich and white and amusing. We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and immortalize him with laughs and admiration.

But the people he destroys along the way? They can pretty much go fuck themselves.

I’m not a fan of that. Are you?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [ABC Films (eBay, Lester Glassner Collection) via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woody Allen: Dating Your Girlfriend’s Daughter is Kind of a Big Deal appeared first on Law Street.

So, how many of you caught the Grammy Awards this weekend?

If you missed it, you should totally check out the recap post I wrote yesterday. It was a pretty epic night, complete with a weird Taylor Swift head banging incident and Daft Punk robot love.

But! The highlight of this year’s Grammys was definitely, without a doubt, Beyoncé and Jay Z’s “Drunk in Love” duet. It was so sexy. How sexy?

Dying over here.

Ridiculous amounts of sexy.

This performance isn’t notable just because all of us felt a universal need to go take a cold shower after watching it. As Alyssa Rosenberg points out on Think Progress, it’s also got a political edge to it.

Folks, Mr. and Mrs. Carter are proving that marriage can be awesome.

Now, I’ve written before about how the institution of marriage can be super problematic. It’s historically rooted in the buying and selling of women — complete with name changes to indicate the changing hands of property owners — and while it’s a different animal now here in the U.S., it’s still a source of major oppression. Spousal abuse and domestic violence still run rampant, women are still disproportionately responsible for the second or third shift of child rearing and housekeeping, and of course, there’s that nasty beast called monogamy. It’s got a shit reputation for making people feel trapped and unfulfilled — assuming they’re even sticking to it.

So, yeah. Marriage can be a bum deal. Which is why divorce rates are depressingly high, marriage rates are tellingly low, and movies like Runaway Bride are so goddamn relatable.

And that’s a problem for the political Right. They’d like to sell marriage all day — the heterosexual, monogamous kind, at least. For the conservatives, marriage is the ideal. The goal we’re all working toward. The bitter end.

But wait — isn’t that the Left’s view as well? Honestly, pretty much. One night stands and extended bachelorhood might be glorified on TV (Barney Stinson, anyone?), but really, even How I Met Your Mother’s ultimate single guy tied the knot eventually. Politically, the Left is all about marriage as well.

I mean, really, who are we kidding? The movement for gay rights has been a movement for gay marriage rights. Even the queers, who are supposed to be little unicorns of unconventional-relationship-forming light, are obsessed with marriage these days. It’s just reality.

So, when Jay Z and Beyoncé — two ridiculously hot, successful people who just happen to be married to one another — take the stage at the Grammys and give the single sexiest performance ever in the history of the world, we all have to sit up and pay attention.

Because it’s like a collective light bulb just went off. Aha! This is what marriage can look like.

Over at Think Progress, Alyssa argued that the Carters’ performance could be a major asset for the Right, if mobilized correctly. Conservatives could sell marriage licenses faster than hotcakes if they hired Bey and Jay to be their spokesmodels.

But I’d like to take it one step further. Sure, the Carters could sell a traditional marriage ideal for the Right — except, they don’t fit into it themselves. The conservative marriage model is dreary and Puritanical. It takes a Calvinist attitude to relationships — it’s hard work, and not much play. It’s a commitment between partners and helpmates, not so much a joyful companionship.

And I’m sorry, but who really wants in on that? Not Beyoncé and Jay Z. Definitely not.

So, instead of serving as a sales pitch for the political Right, I think the Carters are offering a radical redefinition of marriage.

Here are two people who have actual fun together. Who respect each other. Who actively resist racist and sexist norms built into the marriage model. (Did you know that they both changed their names upon legalizing? Jay Z’s an awesome feminist husband and I love him.) These are two separate and independent people, and they’ve come together not because they need each other, but because they want one another.

This is a marriage that doesn’t look like work. It looks like fun.

So, with that, here’s the full video of Beyoncé and Jay Z totally owning the Grammys.

Now that’s a marriage I wouldn’t mind being in.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [idrewuk via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beyoncé and Jay Z Did Some Feminist Marriage Queering at the Grammys appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon folks! How many of you got a snow day today? Lucky bitches.

Anyway! Guess what we’re commemorating this month? Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, yes—but something else. Something a bit less, serious.

The premier of The L Word! Who here remembers that show? Please tell me some of you.

Well, for those of you who live under a rock, The L Word was a Showtime series that followed the lives and loves of a group of lesbian friends living in Los Angeles. It was the first TV show to feature more than one significant lesbian character, and to this day it’s the only show that ever depicted semi-realistic, super-hot lesbian sex.

Who were you 10 years ago? I was an angsty, almost-teenager who dated dumb boys while secretly crushing on older girls. I was goth, or punk, or something, and I was eschewing my dreams of being a writer to halfheartedly pursue my dreams of being a rock star.

It was a weird time.

But 10 years ago, I didn’t have Showtime. I had never heard of The L Word. Netflix was barely a thing. And had my parents walked in on me watching the queer, soft-core porn that is The L Word’s claim to fame, they probably would have sent me away to an all-girls Catholic boarding school. (Kind of a weird disciplinary solution for a Jewish, budding dyke — but that was their go-to threat, nonetheless.)

I didn’t meet the cast of The L Word for another few years, when my first serious girlfriend and I binge-watched most of the series while she was recovering from surgery. Despite the show’s obvious problems — it was depressingly white-washed, hopelessly femme, and wildly unrealistic — I was totally hooked. It was the first time I’d ever seen anything remotely similar to my life up on the screen. And it was hot.

So here we are, a decade later, and everything’s different. I’m a grown-ass woman, with a job and an apartment and a life that’s complicated as fuck. The L Word’s long gone, and it’s been semi-replaced with Orange is the New Black — which is way queerer and more diverse, if slightly less X-rated. Queer characters are gracing the small screen left and right, from Modern Family to The Fosters. Things are good.

But are they really? Because life imitates art. And things are still pretty rough out here.

Poverty and homelessness are still a major problem for queer folks. We’re still met with devastating violence on the streets, and rejection from our families. We’re still faced with higher rates of unemployment, depression, and addiction. We’re still getting deported. We still don’t have health insurance.

Seriously. It’s rough out here.

And we’re not the only ones who feel it. Inequality is at an all-time high, leaving more people out in the cold than ever before. Things are difficult for most of us, regardless of sexuality. But for many, queerness makes it worse.

So, when I look back at The L Word and the world it premiered into 10 years ago, I like to think about how far we’ve come. It’s awesome that dykes on screen aren’t groundbreaking anymore. It’s fabulous that somewhere, someone, somehow, got the funding to represent us — even if it was a limited and problematic representation.

But it’s important to remember how far we have left to go. Just six months before The L Word hit Showtime, the Supreme Court issued a decision on the case Lawrence v. Texas, decriminalizing homosexuality in the United States.

That’s right.

Just six months before the gayest of gay girl shows premiered, queerness was criminal.

And today, a decade later, queers are still grossly underrepresented in the media, while we’re grossly over-represented in the prison population.

How much has really changed? It’s debatable, for sure.