An 8-year-old girl from Omaha, Nebraska and her soccer team were disqualified from the championship round of a tournament this weekend after officials told her team that “she looks like a boy.”

Milagros “Mili” Hernandez was mistakenly identified as a boy on a Nebraska soccer tournament registration form. Officials then ignored the reality that another form listed her as a girl and that she was on an all-girls team, according to The Washington Post.

Her father, Gerardo Hernandez, then attempted to show tournament officials Mili’s insurance card to prove she was a girl, according to ESPN. The Nebraska soccer officials ignored the pleas and cited Hernandez’s short hair as evidence.

So, despite winning two of their three games on Saturday, which guaranteed them a chance to earn a trophy, the entire Azzurri Achurros team was disqualified just hours before their 2 p.m. kick off, according to The Washington Post. 

Mili burst into tears when she heard the decision.

‘I was mad; I never had that problem before. She’s been playing so long in different tournaments,’ her father told The Washington Post. ‘I don’t want no problems with nobody, but that wasn’t the right way to treat people. Why they want to tell my girl looks like a boy?’

Mili plays on the local 11-year-old team after she dominated the league for her age group. The talented youngster dreams of extending her soccer career into middle and high school before advancing to college and, hopefully, the professional leagues, according to her brother.

She has worn her hair short since she was young, her father said, and as she’s grown older she has decided to keep it that way. That spurred USA soccer star Abby Wambach, who also has short hair, to offer support to Mili in the aftermath.

Dear Mili Hernandez, you are amazing in every way. Thank you for teaching us how to be brave and shining a light on something so hurtful. If you don't know, she is my new hero. Her team was disqualified from a tourney cause they thought she was a boy because of a clerical error that wasn't handled properly. Let's meet soon sister.

A post shared by Mary Wambach (@abbywambach) on Jun 5, 2017 at 8:59pm PDT

While the Nebraska soccer tournament has concluded, organizers told the Hernandez family that they could appeal the decision with the Nebraska State Soccer Association, according to local NBC affiliate WOWT News.

But even if she can’t play in future tournaments like this one, another soccer star is here to help out. Mia Hamm, one of the most notable female American soccer players, also offered support.

Hey Mili, we would love to host you at one of our camps @TeamFirstSA . Be you!

— Mia Hamm (@MiaHamm) June 5, 2017

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 Eight-Year-Old Girl Who “Looks Like a Boy” Disqualified from Nebraska Soccer Tournament appeared first on Law Street.

Law was traditionally a male-dominated field–and while women are increasingly entering it, there’s still some work to be done. A new report released by Law School Transparency and co-written by a professor at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University found that women make up a smaller proportion of the population at the highest-tier law schools, and that they’re less likely to find high-paying work after they graduate. The law school gender imbalance is still there, and it’s still very concerning.

Professor Deborah Jones Merritt and Law School Transparency’s Kyle McEntee titled the report: “The Leaky Pipeline for Women Entering the Legal Profession” and identified a number of related issues that could have led to this phenomenon. Despite the fact that women make up the majority of undergraduate and graduate degree seekers, they’re only 50.8 percent of law school applicants. As Merritt and McEntee put it:

To put this a different way, about 3.4 percent of men college graduates apply to law school, but just 2.6 percent of women do…If women applied to law school at the same rate as men, applications would go up 16 percent overall.

Law schools (particularly elite law schools) have also been admitting the women who do apply at lower rates. It’s unclear why that would be the case–it could be because law schools are putting a higher emphasis on LSAT scores, and women tend to score slightly lower on the test on average.

The third issue identified in the report is that women are more likely to attend lower-ranked law schools. Again, there may be a few different reasons contributing to that gap–from the availability of financial aid or slightly lower LSAT scores. Kastalia Medrano of Motto also noted:

The research duo behind the report posited that perhaps women aren’t as aggressive as men in negotiating better scholarship deals, and that the legal industry itself might not be doing enough to rectify its public perception as a male-oriented sphere, a widespread image problem that discourages women from entering a number of professions.

So what does all this mean? Well, many female lawyers are starting with a disadvantage that affects their professional lives moving forward. As Elizabeth Olson of The New York Times puts it:

Despite the high numbers with law degrees, women hold fewer than 20 percent of partnerships at law firms and are underrepresented in the higher echelons of law, including the ranks of judges, corporate counsel, law school deans and professors.

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 The Law School Gender Imbalance: Still a Problem appeared first on Law Street.

Every winter, the mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland plays host to the business world’s most eminent economic, journalistic and entrepreneurial minds at the World Economic Forum. The three-day long summit at Davos has repeatedly been lampooned as an obnoxious demonstration of power and privilege that does very little to create significant change in the world economy. However, looking past the elaborate meals and chartered helicopters, Davos can grant insight into what the top tier of the economic sector has planned for the future. Read on for a breakdown of the most important moments at Davos this month and what they mean for 2016.

What is Davos?

The World Economic Forum–a Swiss nonprofit based in Geneva–holds its annual meeting in the ski resort town of Davos, in the Eastern Alps. The meeting is usually comprised of approximately 2,500 business leaders, policy makers, and journalists–referred to as “influencers.” The three-day conference serves as an opportunity to discuss the world’s most pressing economic and social challenges and often serves as a crucial meeting place for building the groundwork for both corporate and political collaboration in the coming year. Davos’ mission is to facilitate public-private sector relations, and while it has done an admirable job of meeting that goal, it is often criticized for being too exclusive or elitist. The Davos invitee list is often limited to only the most profitable economic corporations, mainstream news networks, and representatives from developed nations.

The Issues

Spotlight on Migration

The refugee crisis took center stage at this year’s conference, with political leaders discussing both the nature of open travel across Europe and the impact of the swell of immigrants on the continent’s economy. Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte claimed that Europe has only “six to eight weeks” to save the Schengen system of travel–which allows for unrestricted travel for those who hold visas for any of the twenty-six countries that make up the Schengen zone.  Several countries have suspended their Schengen policy and Davos provided opportunities for several ministers and politicians to discuss future plans for border control. Rutte argues that as spring approaches, the number of refugees entering Europe will only swell, potentially leading to a complete shutdown of the Schengen zone’s open border policy. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls also spoke on border policies, claiming that the European Union was not originally built to withstand the challenges of the refugee crisis.

In an interview given in the days before the conference began, billionaire George Soros added to the panic surrounding a European Union breakup by stating that

The EU is on the verge of collapse…the Greek crisis taught the European authorities the art of muddling through one crisis after another… The EU now is confronted with not one but five or six crises at the same time.

Outside of the formal roundtable discussions, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven spoke out regarding the spike in sexual attacks in Cologne, Germany and other European cities this month, saying that all refugees are not to blame for these crimes and that sexual harassment was problematic in Sweden and other nations long before the refugees arrived.

The Possibility of a “Brexit”

Davos’s discussions focused on the potential of Britain leaving the European Union in 2016 or 2017. Multiple European leaders made fervent pleas to the British representation and citizenry at large to stay within the union, referring to British secession as a “tragedy.” There is no scheduled vote on England leaving but with tensions over the refugee crisis stretching European governments thin, rumors of a potential British exit sent shock waves through Davos. However, Britain would most likely not benefit from exiting the EU in 2016. In a recent interview, Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia group, said that

If you’re asking if it is in Britain’s narrow interest to stay in Europe, I would say it is less in their interest than it was a year ago – but I would still make the point that if the Brits leave the EU, the likelihood that Scotland leaves Britain goes up very significantly, and I do believe that’s bad for the UK… Furthermore, leaving the single market, irrespective of the fact that Britain is not in the euro, would damage Britain’s role in finance globally; Britain would take a hit because of that. Also the logistics of the unwinding process, playing out over a couple of years, would be immensely distracting and damaging to both sides. Investment decisions are going to be changed both in the UK and the EU, and both would suffer

The potential “Brexit” dominated politician’s rhetoric at the summit but ultimately appeared to be a red herring as Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he is “not in a hurry” to schedule a vote on a British exit from the EU.

Debt Relief for Greece

During the forum, the IMF’s managing director, Christine Lagarde, and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, met briefly to discuss the future of the Greek economy.  The IMF has agreed to extend new loans to Greece but it has also publicly stated that it is only prepared to support Greece on a “strings-attached basis.” Greece will need to enact significant economic changes and receive backing from Eurozone partners if it wants to take on IMF funds. Representatives from both the IMF and the Greek delegation referred to the talks as cordial and productive. Tsipras made a statement during Davos promising to reform the Greek economy–while simultaneously criticizing European insistence on lowering budget deficits.

It should be noted that Lagarde, who is responsible for the IMF’s prediction of world economic growth, recently downgraded the statistic to 3.4 percent from 3.6 percent for 2017. This contributed to worries for all countries represented at Davos but should be especially troubling for Greece as it takes on its new package of loans. Tsipras made a series of optimistic statements regarding a rebound for Greece but with limited prospects for growth and the influx of migrants that have swept into Greece, his speeches hardly seem to be realistic.

Discussions on Gender Inequality

Davos featured multiple events on closing the gender gap this year. Historically, Davos has been male dominated and as only 11 percent of company board directors from across the globe are women, the invite list was still mainly masculine this year. However, the organizers of Davos did dedicate specific time and spaces to gender inequality brainstorming sessions and panels. The United Nations brought its HeforShe campaign to the summit. Both Sheryl Sandberg and Justin Trudeau spoke at a panel on gender inequality, advocating for business and political leaders to embrace feminism. The Girls’ Lounge, a space reserved for the 18 percent of Davos attendees who are female, hosted a roundtable discussion on gender inequality during this year’s conference. The discussion focused on making workplaces more equitable and changing the culture of the corporate world. However, German journalist Manuela Kasper-Claridge noted that a great deal of the events on gender inequality were led by men, seriously undercutting the participation of the female attendees. While the soundbites produced at the forum were mainly positive, relatively few attendees committed publicly to promoting gender equality in their corporations or parliaments.

Conclusion

Davos is not a perfect yardstick for upcoming political and economic changes as it only includes a small percentage of the thousands of decision makers involved in the global economy, but it does create a platform for valuable discussion. The refugee crisis continues to dominate the political and economic discussions of European parliaments, and the pressure from the potential withdrawal of Great Britain from the EU has only complicated the debate. Davos is struggling to create gender parity in its annual conference but its efforts this year may open up more discussions in the coming years and prove valuable in the effort to promote feminism in workplaces across the world. Ultimately, Davos is a forum held for ideas not action–there are no votes or referendums that come as a direct result, the stock market does not rise or fall based on its speeches, and many of the attendees are only repeating their position on issues they have discussed time and time again. However, Davos serves as an unparalleled signpost for where European leaders hope to focus their time, energy, and resources in 2016.

Resources

The Guardian: Let’s Make Attending Davos as Shameful as Running a Sweatshop

The Atlantic Sentinal: Weeks Left to Save Schengen, Dutch Premier Warns

The Express: EU could go UNDER in 6 WEEKS, Dutch PM Claims as France Admits ‘We Weren’t Built for This’

The Daily Mail: Davos elites fear weakened European Union

The Irish Times: Number of Migrants Entering Europe ‘Needs to be Reduced’, Davos Hears

CNBC: Migrants Not to Blame for Sex Attacks: Swedish PM

Foreign Policy: Davos Diary: Europe Fears ‘Brexit’ But Not At ‘Any Price

The Telegraph: Davos Leaders Fear ‘Brexit’ May be Deathknell for EU

International Business Times: Davos 2016: Greece Promised New IMF Loans At Meeting With Lagarde And Tsipras

The Market Mogul: Worries in Davos 2016

The Guardian: IMF Demands EU Debt Relief for Greece Before New Bailout

Quartz: #Davosproblems: The Financial Crisis isn‘t Over, and the Inequality Crisis is Just Beginning

The Guardian: Embrace Feminism to Improve Decision-Making, says Justin Trudeau

Deutsche Welle: Davos, we Have a Gender Problem

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 What are the Major Takeaways from the 2016 World Economic Forum? appeared first on Law Street.

A new report entitled “Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth” was just released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) today, calling for an end to the use of conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ youth. While the Obama Administration has been calling for an end to this type of therapy since last year, and legislation against it has made it through a few state legislatures, this report is another major step toward ensuring that young people are no longer subjected to the harmful and inappropriate practice.

Conversion therapy, sometimes referred to a reparative or sexual reorientation therapy, is a widely discredited practice that attempts to “change” an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It is derived from the incredibly inaccurate, but once widely believed, premise that LGBTQ individuals are suffering from disorders and need to be “cured.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, it can include practices such as “violent role play, reenactment of past abuses, and exercises involving nudity and intimate touching.” It can lead to increased anxiety, depression, and in some cases, be a catalyst for suicidal tendencies.

It has been condemned by major health and psychological organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, it has only expressly been made illegal by four states–California, New Jersey, Illinois, and Oregon–as well Washington D.C. Legislation to end this practice has been introduced in 21 states. The hope appears to be that this report will spark even more action.

SAMHSA Special Expert on LGBT Affairs Elliot Kennedy explained the major takeaway of the report saying:

Conversion therapies or other efforts to change sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression are not effective, reinforce harmful gender stereotypes and are not appropriate mental health treatments.

Kennedy also told Reuters Health that “variations in sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are normal.”

The recent, highly-publicized death of Leelah Alcorn, a 17-year-old transgender woman who committed suicide after her parents forced her to attend conversion therapy, particularly incited calls for change. The Obama administration responded with a statement that supported ending the use of this therapy for minors. This SAMHSA report is another step toward ending the clearly harmful practice, but it’s also still not enough. Until no more young people are objected to the kind of abuse and unethical practices that Alcorn was, there is still more work to do.

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 Federal Report Calls for an End to LGBTQ Conversion Therapy appeared first on Law Street.

Recent surveys have shown that a disproportionate number of Americans believe there is a problem in our country with fairness of the judicial system. Of course, there are various was that this comes to light, but one of the most prolific is judicial bias. From juvenile courts all the way up, it has been a problem for years.

But what indicates judicial bias, what can judges actually do if they feel themselves being biased, and what can citizens do about the issue?  Looking back historically, you can see areas where the problem may have existed, which is a good indication of where it will pop up again.

So the question remains, does judicial bias exist, or is it something that we are making up, and if it exists, what can we do?

Judicial Bias

In his book “Mediating Dangerously – The Frontiers of Conflict Resolution,” Kenneth Cloke wrote about the idea of judicial bias:

[T]here is no such thing as genuine neutrality when it comes to conflict. Everyone has had conflict experiences that have shifted his or her perceptions, attitudes, and expectations, and it is precisely these experiences that give us the ability to empathize with the experiences of others. Nor are there any genuine neutrals in courts, including judges, CEO’s, managers, and human resources representatives, all of whom have biases and points of view, including the bias of wanting to protect the organization from being disrupted by conflict. Judges have the most intractable bias of all: the bias of believing they are without bias.

With a few life-changing court hearings coming up in the Supreme Court and around the world, there have been many think pieces and questions posed by the media. One of those questions is whether or not the personal beliefs of Supreme Court justices will come into play. The right to a fair and speedy trial is promised to us in the Constitution, after all, so that should certainly extend to the top.

Judicial bias occurs when a judge has a bias when making a ruling in a hearing in which he or she has a specific feeling or attitude toward a party that will hinder them from acting fairly. In this case, the judge is actually hindering the right to a fair trial. Typically, a judge will recuse him or herself if a bias occurs.

Can we prove judicial bias?

The problem is that we often cannot prove that judicial bias exists. Now, many legislatures and jurisdictions have allowed parties to seek disqualifications if it appears that there was judicial bias. One example is Title 28 U.S.C. § 455, which has provisions for when a federal judge is biased against a party, as well as when a reasonable, disinterested party would think he has a bias. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this is an easy thing to do. There are many cases where a judge might be biased, but that doesn’t mean that the “reasonable” person would think so.

There is another problem to consider as well: the duty to sit doctrine. Many judges, especially those who are “old school,” tend to follow this. They are basically obligated to stay on a case that they have been assigned to handle unless they are forced to step away.

Sensitive Subjects

In many careers we are instructed to go with our feelings and think with our hearts in order to reach the best possible choices. However, that isn’t something that people would tell judges to do. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, however.

New research has shown that judges, especially Supreme Court justices, will actively pick out the cases with which they identify. In their report, Lee Epstein of the University of Southern California and two colleagues examined nearly 5,000 decisions in 516 Supreme Court free-speech cases that spanned the decades between 1953 to 2010 to determine whether there was any bias. When the Economist looked at the paper, they explained the political bias in a funny way:

For example, if the speaker seeking first amendment solace is a pro-lifer rankled by restrictions on protests near abortion clinics, his rights are very likely to be recognised by Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, but not by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal (see Hill v Colorado). And if the speaker is a high-school kid holding up a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on a school trip, you can expect Justice Thomas to harumph while Justice Ginsburg rises to defend the student’s free-speech rights (see Morse v Frederick). Right-wing justices tend to uphold conservative speakers’ rights and rule against liberal litigants; liberal justices smile on their ideological friends and frown at their foes, too.

While it is funny to think about it in those terms, it has many people thinking about some of the other places that judges could have bias and if it has ever happened before. Many of these include cases where the jury is included in the bias.

Religion

Many of the cases that judges and juries hear go back to morality and our personal beliefs. Many of us are exposed to religion from an early age, and it would be foolish to think that judges would be able to separate, at least completely, their deeply ingrained beliefs from the law. Certainly, there might even be a place for it. In an article from the Journal of Law and Religion, a quote from a former judge puts it into perspective:

It’s funny. . .I think it [religion] has influenced me. I think it’s given me a set of values. . .you know, every once in a while a reading from the New or Old Testament kind of strikes you and you just wouldn’t hear it–or I wouldn’t–or read it if it weren’t for that. It causes you to pause a little bit and do a little self-examination. I think that’s healthy. So I think that does influence my perspective.

There have been several cases in the last few years in which lawyers claimed religious bias against their clients. In Tennessee, a judge found himself in hot water after forcing a man to change his baby’s name from Messiah to Martin after he determined that “The word ‘messiah’ is a title, and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person, and that one person is Jesus Christ.” The child’s parents were there to settle a few different issues, including the baby’s last name.

While not in court, a Texas judge, Carter Tinsley Schildknecht, was issued a public admonition because  of some comments she made, including “describing District Attorney Munk as a ‘New York Jew’ and by criticizing a prosecutor’s beard because it made him look like a ‘Muslim’.”

Gender

One of the biggest sources of bias may be gender. In many of the cases where gender bias was found, it results in decisions that are based upon preconceived notions of sexual roles rather than on fair and impartial appraisals of individual situations. However, many people don’t see this bias because they are operating on those same preconceived notions.

In fact, New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Alan B. Handler wrote “[N]ot everyone has a nose for discrimination, especially in its most subtle forms. We are coming to realize that people are products of cultural conditioning which frequently obscures recognition of social wrongs…Discrimination frequently goes uncorrected because it is undetected.”

So what can we do?

Unfortunately, the idea that we can take away bias is misguided, as it is almost always going to be there. Just like in any other profession, bad judges do exist, but as they are in a power position, it can be hard to find a lawyer willing to expose that. The National Center for State Courts suggests that one of the biggest things we can do is reduce the wear and tear on judges by shortening their hours, provide more feedback on their performances, and encourage the courts to stay vigilant.

Even more so, we need to provide bias training to judges, and maybe even encourage them to do some research into the facts if a case involves someone’s religion, for instance. Diversity training has gotten a bit of a bad name, but it really does serve a purpose, and the courtroom may be the next place that needs it.

Conclusion

Bias is a part of life, unfortunately. Truly, we can never really let go of our bias, but judges have a responsibility to acknowledge it and try to make a fair judgement despite it. Juries have a similar responsibility, especially when they are still in the selection process.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Government Publishing Office: 28 U.S.C. 455 – Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge

Justia: Castellano v. Linden Board of Education

Additional

Douglas Ginsburg: Originalism and Economic Analysis: Two Case Studies of Consistency and Coherence in Supreme Court Decision Making

Journal of Law and Religion: Beneath the Robe: The Role of Personal Values in Judicial Ethics

Kenneth Cloke: Mediating Dangerously – The Frontiers of Conflict Resolution

Economist: Playing Favorites

Religion Clause: Texas Judge Disciplined For Religious-Cultural Bias

Reuters: Tennessee Judge Cited For Ordering Baby’s Name Changed From Messiah

University of Southern California: Do Justices Defend the Speech They Hate? In-Group Bias, Opportunism, and the First Amendment

Women Law: Operating a Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts

American Bar Association: Overcoming Judicial Bias

American Psychology Association: Can Jurors’ Religious Biases Affect Verdicts in Criminal Trials?

NCSC: Strategies to Reduce the Influence of Implicit Bias

William S. Boyd School of Law: Chief William ‘s Ghost: The Problematic Persistence of the Duty to Sit Doctrine

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 Judicial Bias: What’s Morality Got to do With It? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Women’s History Month, and I think it’s pretty widely recognized that four great role models are the three sitting and one former female Supreme Court justices. As the only women ever on the highest court, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotamayor are pretty recognizably badass, regardless of their various ideologies. Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor anchor the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, and consistently write some of the most on point and compelling decisions. O’Connor, despite having retired in 2006, continues to work as an activist. In fact, her startup non-profit iCivics was recently awarded a MacArthur Grant to continue its amazing work in American civics education.

Now these four ladies are obviously recognized and lauded on a near-daily basis. There are a lot of awards, speaking engagements, and the like. But I think they just got one of their coolest honors recently–a fan made a set of Legos called the “Legal Justice League” that depict the four justices.

Image courtesy of Maia Weinstock via Flickr

How adorable is that? RBG even has her signature white collar, and Kagan’s hairstyle is spot on. Here’s another picture–look at them working!

Image courtesy of Maia Weinstock via Flickr

Anyway, these are a great, sweet representation of some of the top female minds in American jurisprudence. The creator, Maia Weinstock, stated about her figures:

This set of custom-designed LEGO minifigures, U.S. Supreme Court replica, and SCOTUS library/study aims to celebrate the accomplishments of women in the legal realm, and to encourage girls and women to work toward high positions in the U.S. judicial system.

While I personally think this would be a great set for LEGO to manufacture, the company turned down the idea after Weinstock submitted it. It has a “no politics or political symbols” rule. However, the Supreme Court isn’t, in and of itself, political. It’s actually supposed to be the opposite–a politically agnostic institution tasked with interpreting the law regardless of party lines. While that doesn’t always necessarily happen in practice, I don’t know that making figurines of the female Supreme Court justices–three liberal and one conservative–really makes any sort of political statement.

Although toys have been moving toward being more gender neutral and inclusive in recent years, many little girls’ toys–particularly dolls–still fall more into the Barbie or Bratz category. While there’s nothing wrong with those toys per se, it would be great for young girls to have more options and more exposure to real female role models.

Regardless of LEGO’s decision not to run with them,  Weinstock’s Legal Justice League figures are a great homage to the indubitably awesome female justices, and a great celebration of Women’s History Month!

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 Everything is Not Awesome: LEGO Rejects Female SCOTUS Justices Set appeared first on Law Street.

The vast majority of public school classrooms in the United States are composed of students of both genders. While some private schools do occasionally embark on single-sex education, public schools focus on a blend of genders. However, there is growing debate about the effectiveness of each method of education. Read on to learn about single-sex education, its benefits, its problems, and its future.

History of Single-Sex Education

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, single-sex classrooms in public schools were the norm and a product of cultural views on women and their roles in society. In the latter half of the twentieth century, however, single-sex education was only found in elite private schools and reserved for students whose parents could afford to send their children to expensive preparatory programs. Recently, however, there has been a push to offer single-sex classrooms in the American public school system.

In the mid 1990s, there were only two public schools in the United States that offered single-sex classrooms; today there are more than 500. As education professionals search for innovative ways to improve the education system, many have looked toward single-sex education as a way to capitalize on boys’ and girls’ different learning styles. While various studies and reports proclaiming the merits of a single-sex education, many claim just the opposite.

What are the Arguments for Single-Sex Education?

Advocates claim single-sex education offers students a learning environment that is directed toward their gender’s natural learning style. Research has shown that boys and girls learn differently; where boys often learn better in an environment that emphasizes physical activity and more structure, girls often learn best in a classroom that emphasizes verbal communication and empathy. In a single-sex classroom, a teacher would be better able to focus on those learning styles to enhance the experiences of each gender.

Advocates also argue that a single-sex classroom would help to remove existing gender biases, which some professionals say are pushing girls away from computer technology careers and boys away from the arts. Traditionally, boys excel in math and sciences while girls succeed more in the arts and English. Some argue that single-sex classrooms would allow students to explore all of these areas unhindered by any gender biases that may exist.

Many people point out that removing the distraction of trying to impress the other gender, especially for middle and high school students, would improve student performance. Experts say girls tend to “dumb themselves down” for boys, while boys will often act out or goof off in order to catch the attention of girls. Without the distraction of the opposite gender, some experts say that students will be more focused and serious about their schoolwork.

What are the Arguments Against Single-Sex education?

Opponents of single-sex classrooms point out the similarities between separating genders in education and the “separate but equal” doctrine aimed at African Americans in public schools in the 1950s. They argue that separate but equal education is “inherently unequal.”

To some, single-sex classrooms violate Title IX, a federal educational amendment that requires females to be included in any educational program or activity. Opponents feel that single-sex classrooms would actually reinforce the same gender stereotypes advocates hope to eliminate. The kind of learning environments proposed by advocates of single-sex classrooms cater to existing stereotypes about males and females, and would present problems for students such as, for instance, a sensitive boy or an assertive girl.

Opponents argue that students are not cookie cutter molds of the traits commonly associated with their gender; rather their character varies along a spectrum ranging from loud and physically active to quiet and empathetic. Single-sex classrooms would trap students in rigid stereotypes, failing to allow students who fall anywhere else on the spectrum the chance to grow individually and academically.

Additionally, opponents say the true failure of a single-sex education is that it does not provide opportunities for boys and girls to work together, thus failing to prepare them for a co-educational world. As women anchor their places in American industry and business, today’s students will need to learn how to function with both genders, without being distracted simply because of the presence of the opposite sex.

Case Studies: Examples of Single-Sex Education Across the U.S.

Urban Prep

Located in Chicago, Illinois, Urban Prep Academies is a collection of single-sex all-male public charter schools. They are currently the only all-male public schools in the state of Illinois. The curriculum includes a heavy focus on community and public service, and working toward either college admittance or a professional field. Urban Prep has made reaching out to young men, and teaching in ways that correspond to the way in which young men learn, one of its primary goals.

The success of Urban Prep has been well documented — it certainly has had a higher graduation rate than many of its peers in other public schools in the area. However, there are questions as to whether that comes from the single-sex aspect of education, or the other benefits offered by a charter school like Urban Prep. There’s also the question of whether the model that Urban Prep employs would be sustainable on a wider scale.

William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity

The William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity (WALIPP), located in Houston, Texas, is an all-male public school. One interesting aspect of WALIPP is that in addition to an all-male student population, the teaching staff is also all men. The reasoning behind such specific hiring is that the teachers act as strong male role models for the young men who are in their classrooms. Many of the young men at WALIPP were raised primarily by their mothers, in single-family households, and benefit from having successful older men to look to for guidance. Audrey Lawson, the founder of WALIPP, explained that: “inner city boys started out not being thought of as good students. In elementary school, they have had mostly women teachers, and girls respond better to them.” 

Conclusion

Whether or not we’ll start to move more convincingly toward single-sex classrooms is uncertain; although it is important to note that as more charter schools try unconventional methods, it is certainly a possibility. The benefits have yet to be proven, but as American students constantly struggle in meeting educational benchmarks, the experiment of single-sex learning may be valuable enough for some schools to consider worth the risk.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Title IX and Sex Discrimination

Additional

Washington Post: Boys and Girls Learn Separately at Prince George’s School

National Association for Single Sex Public Education: What Have Researchers Found When They Compare Single-Sex Education With Co-Education?

Denver Post: Genders Split Up At More Schools

CRC Health Group: The Many Advantages of Single-Sex Schools

ASCD: Single-Gender Classes Can Respond to the Needs of Boys and Girls

Synonym: The Disadvantages of Single Gender Education Schools

Al Jazeera America: Study: Single-Sex Education Offers No Benefits

Atlantic: The Trouble With Single-Sex Schools

American Psychological Association: Single-Sex Education Unlikely to Offer Advantage Over Coed Schools, Research Finds

The New York Times: Single-Sex Education is Assailed in Report

Washington Post: More Schools Trying Separation of the Sexes

Huffington Post: Arlington High School in Indianapolis Separating Boys and Girls in Classes

Great Schools: Single-Sex Education: The Pros and Cons

Atlantic: The Never-Ending Controversy Over All Girls Education

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Public Schools are Experimenting With Single-Sex Education appeared first on Law Street.

A men’s rights movement has gained momentum within the last several years with the goals of reclaiming rights for men in society. One offshoot of the movement, the Red Pill, is accused of being inspired by a largely misogynistic attitude. This accusation is based on the attacks on women for using and abusing men, and essentially being the “evil” of the sexes. In addition to its major presence on social media, Men’s Rights activists have attempted to gain awareness through conferences and rallies. The Men’s Rights Movement, still controversial in nature, has legitimate goals in that it is working to gain equal rights by advocating for the equal treatment of boys and men in professional, educational, and legal situations. Some feel that this is a hidden effort to disguise prejudice against women, yet men continue to protest their desire to be “equal” citizens in a society where they believe that women currently have all the power. Read on for more information about the Men’s Rights movement and its Social Media counterpart, the Red Pill Movement.

What is the Red Pill Movement?

The Red Pill Movement is comprised of a group of men who hold a certain animosity toward women, believing them to be manipulative, unfaithful, and narcissistic. They band together primarily through social media and rant about their hatred of the opposite sex. Men who “take” the red pill are choosing to live a life free of emotional attachment to any a woman for fear that she will use him for his status, money, or emotional stability. The term red pill has its roots in the 1999 movie “The Matrix.” The red pill symbolizes the consumption of the truth, whereas taking the blue pill results in pure ignorance. Advocates for the Red Pill Movement believe that by taking the red pill, or consuming this eye-opening knowledge, they are becoming aware of women and their antics.

Social Media

Reddit, a social media site where individuals can share information such as texts, photographs, and personal opinions, is the main platform of the Red Pill Movement. Here men rant about their misunderstanding of and hatred for the opposite sex. The theme of most threads is how women are cheating, lying, manipulative, and narcissistic. Members often communicate in a verbally violent and insulting manner toward females and share their negative experiences of being taken advantage of, used, and insulted by women.

The Men’s Rights Movement

While the Red Pill Movement is based on the belief that women are wicked in nature, the Men’s Rights Movement actually does have some concrete goals that members would like to accomplish. According to the Huffington Post, goals of  the pro-men’s rights group Canadian Association for Equality, are mainly to bring awareness about “shared custody of children, unhealthy perceptions of masculinity, declining rates of university enrollment, spousal abuse, and suicide.” Since the Men’s Rights Movement is fairly new, there hasn’t been any policy or legislation enacted yet. The main goal of the group is to draw attention to the issues that men face in a society that tend to focus more on gaining women’s rights and recognition.

Rape

The Men’s Rights Movement emphasizes how often they believe men to be wrongfully accused of rape. Members argue that society has created a stigma that victimizes women and paints a picture of men as violently sexual predators. Many posters and arguments of the movement highlight the idea that women are partially responsible for any sexual acts that occur, in that they consume alcohol and choose to have sex with a man who they then turn around and accuse of rape.

Child Custody

The movement argues that women often receive custody in divorce, and men are unfairly assigned the monetary responsibilities.

#Feminist single motherhood in a nutshell #feminismisawful #NoMRA #MRA @Typhonblue @JudgyBitch1 @AlyssMajere @icmi14 pic.twitter.com/uFyOcaWrIL — Chloé J.F. Berg (@ChloeShell18) July 17, 2014

Domestic Violence

The Men’s Rights Movement accuses society of labeling domestic violence as one sided, in that men commit of all of the abuse. Advocates for men’s rights argue that women are just as responsible for violence in the home, yet it goes unrecognized because of the negative stigma attached to men.

Suicide 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Suicide among males is four times higher than among females and represents 79 percent of all U.S. suicides.” The Men’s Rights Movement aims to prevent this alarming epidemic in men. By providing support and encouragement to young men, members believe that this could eliminate some of the suicides that occur in response to emotional and mental disturbances and abuse.

A Voice for Men

A Voice for Men is a website that compiles information on the Men’s Rights Movement. The organization’s argument revolves around the theory of gynocentrism, the belief that males have bent to the demands of women for centuries. In addition to the organization’s website, the group has a social media presence on Facebook and Twitter dedicated to the Men’s Rights Movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxcXldIFsbQ

The International Men’s Rights Conference 

The Men’s rights movement is increasingly gaining popularity on the grounds that women are the more powerful sex. According to activists, men face the adverse effects of a certain stigma that society has ingrained into them throughout history. At the first International Men’s Rights Conference held in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, both men and women gathered to discuss the issue. Men’s rights activists believe that men face difficulty in society, which has forced them to live out life as “second-class-citizens,” and that men are continuously blamed for rape. According to conference attendee Barbara Kay,

“The vast majority of women crying rape on campus are actually expressing buyer’s remorse from alcohol-fueled promiscuous behavior involving murky consent on both sides…It’s their get-out-of-guilt-free card.”

Men also blamed their feelings toward women on their early childhood experiences. According to Stefan Molyneux, “If we could just get [women] to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases.” Molyneux continued to say that women are responsible for choosing the abuser-types, or in his word “a-holes.” “Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil,” he adds later. “And then know what they say? ‘We’re victims!”

Watch a spoof video below satirizing how women react to men at bars. All jokes aside, this comedic video is indicative of many of the views expressed by members of the Red Pill Movement.

This movement is not just in the United States but many other countries, as well, particularly in the East. Where feminism empowers women, the Red Pill or Men’s Rights  movement cripples them. In a disturbing piece written by Kim Tong-hyung, a professor of medicine at Seoul National University in Korea, Lee Yoon-seong blames women for the rape epidemic. Yoon-seong says:

“If there is money on the street, somebody will pick it up. If there is a woman walking around with sexy clothing, there will be somebody who rapes her …”

The Men’s Human Rights Rally

A men’s rights rally was organized in Toronto, Canada on September 28, 2013. Participants claimed that men are just as likely to face domestic abuse, have a higher rate of suicide, die earlier, and drop out of school as women. They argued that men make up “90 percent” of the prison population and are less likely to get a job after graduation. Thirty people fought for the movement to gain acceptance and recognition. This was a controversial rally, in that some people felt that it was simply a blow to women and masking an underlying current of misogyny.

Case Study: Elliot Rodger and the Santa Barbara shootings

In May 2014 a 22-year-old Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree in Isla Vist, California that was fueled by his resentment of the women who rejected him and the men who received their affections instead. Rodger left behind a video in which he stated, “You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it.”

Watch the chilling video of Elliot Rodger before his killing spree.

Rodger was reportedly driven to murder because of the rejection he felt from most women. He complains of being a “22-year-old virgin,” and blames his lack of sexual success on the opposite sex. Clearly, there are other mental health issues that contribute to his feelings of rage, yet his outlet is to target what he believed was the source of his depression and anger for a good portion of his life. Rodger was not the only one who had these hostile feelings toward women; Men’s Rights advocates band together to speak of their negative experiences with women and rant about how they have caused them to live a life of misery and deceit. Some of the arguments are extreme, unreasonably blaming an entire sex for the source of a man’s unhappiness in life.

Rape as a Tool

Case Study: Rape Internationally

According to CNN, “rape has too often become the weapon of choice for frustrated young men who blame women, increasingly visible in the workplace, for their unemployment, and who hope to regain jobs by frightening women back home through sexual violence.” Men are being fueled by their anger toward women; they may feel threatened or humiliated by them and are using the most powerful tool that they have to attack in the most sexually aggressive and destructive way possible. Between 2006 and 2011, rape cases in India rose by twenty-five percent. Even more disturbing, only one quarter of the rapists were convicted. Rape is an increasing normality in India and indicative of the lack of support that women receive in the predominantly patriarchal society. Similarly, according to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, in the United States, 97 percent of violent rapists will not be convicted and 54 percent of cases are not even reported.

The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence

The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence works to alleviate some of the gender violence conducted against women internationally, specifically in times of war and conflict. Its main goals are to increase services offered to individuals who have been victims of violence and rape, gain justice for victims, and ultimately stop the aggression toward women.

Battling the Red Pill

Social Media to Combat the Red Pill Movement

In response to a society that seems to breed rape culture, the Twitter movement #YesAllWomen has emerged on Twitter. According to Time, the #YesAllWomen hashtag was created “to criticize the way society teaches men to feel entitled to women at the expense of their health, safety and, in [the Santa Barbara shooter] Rodger’s case, lives.” The online campaign was created to empower women, and expand on the belief that women are worth more than their physical appearance. It also brings awareness to how women are constantly placed in sexually offensive and uncomfortable situations. A recent post links to a list of (in)appropriate responses to cat-callers on the street. Tweets such as this one:

Because tweets like this should not exist #YesAllWomen pic.twitter.com/Ng84ItSXjD — Izabella (@izabellaanna_) July 14, 2014

Organizations Against Rape Culture

Organizations such as People Against Rape Culture, are fighting back by attempting to educate, collaborate, and advocate so that people will become more aware of rape culture. There are also organizations that include man’s involvement. Men Can Stop Rape has compiled a list of Men’s Anti-Violence Organizations. The group has also used collaborative methods, such as the Strength Campaign, to educate boys in middle schools, high schools, and universities and assist them in working on relationships with peers, teachers, family members, and members of their community.

Conclusion

Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion, therefore whether or not the Men’s Rights Movement results in any legislation is irrelevant to its existence as a legitimate movement. This holds true for the Red Pill Movement, as well; however, that it is breeding an extreme sense of animosity toward an entire gender. Governments must continue to educate and prosecute those people who violently and sexually violate women, no matter where the source of that anger comes from.

Resources

Business Insider: Inside Red Pill, the Weird New Cult For Men Who Don’t Understand Women

WorldNews Network: Deadly California rampage: Chilling video, but no match for reality

Washington Post: Men’s Rights Activists, Gathering to Discuss All the Ways Society Has Done Them Wrong

Times of India: Low Conviction Rate Spurring Sexual Assault Cases in India

TIME: The Most Powerful #YesAllWomen Tweets

RAINN: 97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive no Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows

TIME: What I Learned as a Woman at a Men’s-Rights Conference

Southern Poverty Law Center: Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women

Ms. Foundation: Stopping the Violence Against Women 

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Red Pill and the Men’s Rights Movement 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 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.

Thursday, January 30, 2014 saw a huge victory for the rights of transgender students. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, overturning a decision made by a lower court, held that being transgender does not inhibit the right of equal access to restrooms in public buildings.

Nicole Maines’ rights were violated in the fifth grade, when she was told by school administrators that she must use the staff bathroom instead of the girl’s room at Asa Adams School in Orono, Maine. The case was first brought to Penobscot County Superior Court. Nicole was represented by lawyers of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who argued that the student had been deprived of her rights under the Maine Human Rights Act, which requires equal access of all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation and other identifications, of public accommodations. However, the court held for the school district, claiming that a 1983 law that mandated schools to have separate bathrooms according to sex outweighed the provision in the Human Rights Act.

The state supreme court noted that the old law really was meant to provide access for all people, regardless of gender, to sanitary facilities in public buildings, including schools. With this interpretation, the court found there was a violation of the Human Rights Act: by prohibiting Nicole from using a female restroom though she identified as female, the school district discriminated against Nicole because of her gender identity.

Other cases around the country hint at further progress on the issue of transgender bathroom use. Two individuals in Iowa, both of whom were born as males and identify as females, won the right to use women’s public restrooms. In June, in Colorado, six year old Coy Mathis’ family won their case against the Fountain-Fort Carson School District that had barred Coy’s use of a female restroom. Now, the Maines case can be added to the list of successes in furthering the rights and acceptance of transgender individuals.

This court decision, the first to invoke an amendment to Maine’s Human Rights Act that protected transgender persons in schools, will have great importance for transgender students across the country. Nicole Maines is certainly not the only individual that has faced hardship in schools due to being transgender. Adolescence can be a difficult time for any pupil, and the problem of bullying has grown in visibility throughout the country. Students like Nicole need the support of their teachers and school officials in the face of adversity, and singling Nicole out as different by requiring her to use a unisex bathroom hardly helps. Children don’t just learn from their teachers in the classroom; they set an example for certain behavior. If school officials, through their actions, show students of transgender identity to be different than others, what’s to stop other students of thinking the same?

The seemingly minor issue of which bathroom to use can mean a lot to a transgender individual. The majority opinion of the court addressed this when it stated, “it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity.” The choice of what bathroom to use reaffirms a person’s notion of their sex. Denying someone the ability to use a bathroom associated with the gender they identify with in effect denies acceptance of their chosen gender.

Moreover, requiring a transgender person to use a separate unisex bathroom not only denies him or her the recognition of their sex identity but makes their private issue into a public one. For instance, Nicole Maines was given access to the staff bathroom but was escorted by a teacher whenever she had to use the facility.  This policy was extremely unfair to Nicole as it clearly made visible the fact that she was transgender, something that, like the choices and beliefs of other individuals, is a personal matter. The school district directly interfered with Nicole’s freedom of expression in disallowing her use of a female restroom, though despite the genes she was given, Nicole is a female. The treatment that Nicole Maines was given in her public school should not have to be experienced by any other transgender individual in the future, and her case’s outcome displays progress in how schools can accommodate the needs of all of their students.

It is hopeful to know that, in fighting the school’s policy, Nicole did not only have the support of her family and lawyers, but many of her fellow classmates. Students reportedly cheered in Nicole’s high school when the verdict was declared. Teenagers evidently understood that a policy was discriminatory when adult school officials did not. Activists like Nicole and her like-minded family and peers give hope that similar discriminatory policies across the country may be reversed in the coming years.

[NPR] [Press Herald] [Maine Legislature] [Daily Mail] [USA Today] [CNN]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Susan Sermoneta via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post The Significance of Restrooms: Transgender Rights Upheld in Maine appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year’s Eve, lovelies!

Folks, I can’t wrap my head around this 2014 business. I literally feel like 2013 didn’t happen. A year has never passed so quickly in my entire life. (Don’t I say that every year? Whatever.) Anyway! In honor of this super awesome day — a day that marks fresh starts, new beginnings, and exciting adventures — I thought we should talk about resolutions.

That’s right. New Year’s Resolutions. And not those bullshit ones about losing weight and juicing half your food and spending more time on Skype with your long distance friends. No one ever sticks to those. I’m talking about some resolutions we can really believe in, à la Miranda Hobbes.

Buzzfeed did a fabulous post last week about how the red-headed attorney  was the most empowering of the four Sex and the City characters, and I’d have to agree. If she was a real person, I’m pretty sure she’d be a fan of The F Word, am I right?

So! Without further ado, let’s be more like Miranda this year, mmkay?

Resolution #1: Don’t be afraid to tell someone to fuck off. Ever. Embrace that power gladly.

HBO / Via loveforlabels.eu

Miranda may have been the queen of no-fuss breakups, but this resolution doesn’t just apply to romantic relationships. Republican douchebags preventing you from accessing a safe abortion? Tell ’em to go fuck themselves. Obamacare failing to provide you with real health insurance? Tell ’em to fuck that. Say it loud and say it proud, folks. Because that’s the only way we’re going to make anything better.

Resolution #2: Fuck up the patriarchy and its traditional gender roles.

Thanks HBO!

Loves, Miranda may have been a totally femme straight lady, but she rocked a suit and tie like nobody’s business. She also earned more money than any of her boyfriends, failed to romanticize marriage and motherhood, and even embraced a lesbian identity (albeit, a fake one) in order to make partner at her law firm.

Remember when Miranda bought that ginormous apartment all by herself? Or when she told all of her friends to STFU about their man problems and focus the conversation on something more substantive?

Miranda subverted all the patriarchal expectations surrounding gender — namely, that women should be quiet, submissive, and dependent on a man. And you know what? She was fucking awesome at it.

Let’s resolve to be equally awesome at toppling the patriarchy.

Resolution #3: Don’t apologize for your sexuality.

HBO / Via tumblr.com

Anybody remember the scene we’re referencing here? It’s epic.

Miranda’s been going through a dry spell, and one day, as she’s walking down the street, a group of rowdy construction workers starts catcalling her. Like any good feminist, Miranda got pissed about the street harassment that follows women fucking everywhere. But, she took a unique and super badass approach to handling it. She walked right up to her catcallers and asked them if they were actually interested in fucking her. Because she was horny, and had no time for silly games. Be prepared to make good on your offer — or STFU.

Not surprisingly, her harassers were totally intimidated and basically tried to curl up into little balls and disappear right there in the middle of the street. What can we learn from Miranda here? Don’t be ashamed of your sexuality. Know your needs and seek to have them met, unapologetically. Get it, grrrl.

Resolution #4: Don’t second guess yourself. Call bullshit when you see it — and stand up for yourself.

HBO / Via tumblr.com

While the three other ladies of SATC bitched about how to keep a man, Miranda told them how it is, plain and simple. As a feminine presenting person, you’re often expected to metaphorically — and sometimes, literally — bow down to your partner if you want your relationship to stay intact.

Well, loves, Miranda says fuck that. And I do too.

Let’s all resolve to stay empowered as individuals this year. Let’s be the best people we can be, independently. And if somebody doesn’t like that — whether it’s your partner, your boss, your professor, or the entire Republican party — fuck ’em. Life’s too short.

See folks? Isn’t Miranda awesome? I told you.

Are you with me on these resolutions for 2014? What would you add to the list? Blow it up in the comments!

—

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 [John Gilbert Leavitt 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 New Year’s Resolution: Fuck Shit Up with Miranda Hobbes appeared first on Law Street.

In the workplace, there are certain parameters of acceptable behavior that are common knowledge, and then it is up to a given company’s discretion to set additional rules. For example, a big-time global firm by the name of Clifford Chance recently sent out an office memo on how to act appropriately within the workplace to its American offices. Parts of the memo were aimed seeming exclusively at women, and overall the piece was a rather impressive display of sexism.

The memo was entitled “Speaking Effectively” and contained 150 pieces of advice on various types of presentation skills. Some of the tips were pretty benign and gender-neutral, such as to bring notes to presentations, make strong eye contact, timing speeches, and using pauses effectively. However, others were clearly aimed at women, and can be considered patronizing at best.

The five-page memo is broken up into a number of categories, and each category seems to contain an extra tip for women. Some of my personal favorite lines:

• “Pretend you’re in moot court, not the high school cafeteria.”
• “Your voice is higher than you hear. Think Lauren Bacall, not Marilyn Monroe.”
• “Don’t giggle.”
• “Don’t hide behind your hair.”
• “Don’t take your purse up to the podium.”
• “Wear a suit, not your party outfit.”
• “Understated jewelry, nothing jingly or clanky.”
• “No one heard Hillary the day she showed cleavage.”
• “If wearing a skirt, make sure audience can’t see up it when sitting on the dias.”
• “Make sure you can stand in your heels, not trip, don’t rock back on them.”

None of these tips could be construed as anything but specifically aimed at female attorneys. Stating that Lauren Bacall, an American actress known for her “distinctive husky voice and sultry looks,” is a more appropriate voice role model than a different actress is condescending. Demeaning our former Secretary of State Clinton’s outfit choices is uninspired—no one would ever make an equal comparison to our male politicians. And overall, this memo treats female attorneys as though they are teenagers, and reduces their high educational attainment and worth to their physical and verbal appearances.

The worst part about this memo is the way in which these tips are presented, not the tips themselves. As someone who has competed in public speaking activities for many years, and who is constantly charged with teaching other young women how to present, some aspects of these are grounded in reality. The issue is that they’re not just for women, they’re tips for men too. Everyone should know that there’s an appropriate professional voice and personal voice. Both women and men should speak differently to their friends than their coworkers. But by comparing women’s voices to celebrities, and not making a similar comparison for men, is where this memo veers into grossly inappropriate territory.

As much as we would like to think differently, women are still at a disadvantage in the workplace. While estimates of its actual value range from 77 cents – 91 cents, the gender pay gap does indisputably exist. Furthermore, we constantly are hearing case after case of sexual harassment—from San Diego Mayor Bob Filner’s rampant inappropriate behavior, to a recent revelation that unpaid interns aren’t necessarily protected from sexual harassment.

Then there are memos like this one from Clifford Chance. It differentiates between men and women, and while it cannot necessarily be legally defined as sexual harassment, it is absolutely discriminatory. As long as women are treated like children while being told how to behave appropriately in the work place at a prominent firm, workplace equality will remain a struggle.

—

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.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Wilson 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 Commonsense Etiquette or Blatant Sexism? appeared first on Law Street.