The jury in the Taylor Swift groping lawsuit ruled in favor of the pop star after four hours of deliberation. Swift counter-sued former Colorado radio host David Mueller for grabbing her behind at a meet-and-greet in 2013. Previously he had sued her for $3 million, claiming that her accusations were false. That suit was dismissed by a judge last week, but yesterday, the jury found in favor of Swift in her counter-suit. Mueller will have to pay her $1 in damages, an important symbolic victory for the pop star.

For Swift, this was more than a case of “he said, she said.” She hopes to inspire more victims of sexual assault to come forward. Swift recognized the uniqueness of her ability to launch a countersuit in which she was only seeking $1. After the verdict, she said: “I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this.”

According to Swift, she posed with Mueller at a meet-and-great in 2013, and he reached under her skirt to grab her butt. One of the key points of contention was a photo from the event. In it, Mueller’s hand is clearly below Swift’s back. He claimed that he had just touched her ribs, Swift says that’s when he grabbed her bare butt. Her bodyguard and the photographer testified that they had seen him grope her as well, and her mother testified about the conversation they had in the immediate aftermath in which Swift disclosed what had happened to her.

Mueller was fired from his position as a radio host two days later. In addition to suing Swift, he also sued her mother and her radio promotions director Frank Bell. He claimed that Andrea Swift and Bell told his bosses, leading to his firing. They were both found not liable as well.

Swift has said that she plans on donating to organizations that aid women who have suffered from sexual assault. And she acknowledged that as one of the most recognizable pop stars in the world, she has a unique ability to be a role model for young women, as did her lawyer, Doug Baldridge. He stated during closing arguments: “By returning a verdict on Ms. Swift’s counterclaim for a single symbolic dollar, the value of which is immeasurable to all women in this situation…You will tell every woman…that no means no.”

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 Taylor Swift Vindicated With Groping Lawsuit Win 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:

Health Care Bill Fails in a Senate Vote Shocker

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

While McCain is getting much of the credit for being the third “no” vote, many are also calling for more recognition for Collins and Murkowski. After all, had McCain not come back to vote in favor of discussing the bill in the first place, he wouldn’t have needed to dramatically vote against it.

Tomorrow the headlines will focus on McCain, but let’s not forget it was Susan Collins and Senator Murkowski who held the line all the way. https://t.co/J2TWixYHC9

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 28, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: July 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Bill O’Reilly’s departure from Fox News is being touted as a victory against the vitriolic reporting of the network. After multiple sexual harassment lawsuits against the cable anchorman became public, sponsors began pulling ads from the show to the point that Fox leadership decided to cut their losses and dismiss O’Reilly. But will that move actually change anything about Fox News?

“The O’Reilly Factor” was an incredibly popular program and producers scrambled to fill the profitable 8 p.m. weekday time slot that draws almost 4 million viewers each night. Tucker Carlson has been chosen from the Fox News bench to fill O’Reilly’s shoes. While he might not have the same popularity or fame as O’Reilly, Carlson’s dismissive views of women hardly make him a departure from the O’Reilly Factor era. For those who don’t regularly tune in to Fox News, Carlson is best known for his program “Crossfire”–which Jon Stewart famously tore to pieces in 2004. This year, Carlson replaced Megyn Kelly after her decision to leave Fox–so it would appear that Carlson is making a habit of replacing more popular hosts.

O’Reilly may be leaving Fox in disgrace, but the moral judgment passed on him does not translate into financial ruin. O’Reilly is receiving a $25 million payout upon his exit, a far greater sum than any of the women who sued him received, which is equal to one year of his salary. He will no doubt be invited to speak on cable news shows and on the lecture circuit, and already has a book deal to further augment his income.

Other media outlets might have taken O’Reilly’s departure as an opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to reform. Fox News could have hired outside of its existing anchor network, a true break from tradition. Even once the executives decided to hire in-house, they could have gone with a candidate with more experience with O’Reilly’s viewers–like host Laura Ingraham, who filled in for O’Reilly on multiple occasions. Ingraham tows the party line at Fox so hiring her would guarantee viewer retention while simultaneously serving as a gesture of respect towards female anchors at the network.

After Megyn Kelly’s departure, which O’Reilly reportedly contributed to, Fox had a chance to step back and address the pervasive sexism that female staff have faced at the network–a chance executives did not take. Representative Maxine Waters, who was personally attacked by O’Reilly, went so far as to call Fox News a “sexual harassment enterprise.” By appointing Carlson, the Fox team has only reaffirmed the culture O’Reilly and Roger Ailes built together at Fox. The window dressing might change, but the 8 p.m. weekday slot–and Fox News as a whole–will be the same, whether or not O’Reilly is at the helm.

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 Why Bill O’Reilly’s Departure Won’t Change Fox appeared first on Law Street.

Approximately 250 employees of Sterling Jewelers have testified about sexual harassment in the workplace. Sterling is the company that owns Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry.

According to the Washington Post, multiple women who worked for the company allege that their male bosses and managers groped them or pressured them to engage in unwanted sexual activities in exchange for raises and promotions. Others have reported gender-based pay and promotion discrimination.  

Since 2008, a class action suit against the company has expanded to include 69,000 women. But the attorneys representing the hundreds of men and women who testified received permission to release their clients’ statements on February 26.

The statements detail incidents that occurred in the late 1990s and 2000s. The women who are part of the “class”–or group of people suing the company–are seeking punitive damages and work compensation they say they never received.

Because Sterling makes its employees agree not to take employment lawsuits to public court, the case will go to arbitration court, which means it will be heard in private and the details of the proceedings could remain confidential.

A spokesman for Sterling told the Washington Post that the company had investigated the accusations and found that they were “not substantiated by the facts,” and added that there are “multiple processes in place to receive and investigate allegations of harassment or misconduct.”

However one of a handful of women who spoke to the Post said that a few days after reporting that a male manager had tried to kiss her, she was accused of stealing jewelry and money by one of her bosses and subsequently fired.

According to the Post, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) wrote in a report last year that arbitration policies such as Sterling’s could “prevent employees from learning about similar concerns shared by others in their workplace.”

Sexual misconduct is an ongoing issue in work spaces. Two years ago, Cosmopolitan Magazine published a survey in which one in three women aged 18-34 reported being harassed at work. In June, the EEOC released a report which found that workplace harassment in general–whether on the basis of sex, race, orientation, or other factors–often goes unreported (the study also found that at least 25 percent of women experience harassment in the workplace).

Sterling isn’t the only company at the center of a high-profile sexual harassment case these days. Uber is currently facing widespread claims of mishandling harassment complaints from its female engineers.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hundreds of Jewelry Store Chain Employees Testify About Workplace Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Uber leadership is scrambling to react this week to the sexual harassment allegations of former employee Susan J. Fowler, whose blog post on her experience at Uber has gone viral. Fowler describes how she was repeatedly sexually harassed and discriminated against yet every time she made a report to her managers or to human resources, she was dismissed. Fowler’s story throws a spotlight on sexism in an industry that loves to paint itself as forward thinking and inclusive, and her experience was not an isolated case–as Fowler’s blog gained traction, women from a range of companies began sharing their experiences with sexual harassment in the tech world.

Uber’s reputation already took a hit this winter when #deleteUber began to trend after Uber failed to condemn the Trump Administration’s immigration ban and continued sending cars to airports during a tax driver protest. After Fowler’s blog post, the deleting trend is back in full force. With rival Lyft picking up some of the client base that was once so loyal to Uber, the company’s reputation–and financial success–could begin to crumble.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has stated that he was disturbed and shocked by Fowler’s experience and within a matter of hours had hired former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct a review of sexual harassment claims at the company. This will be Holder’s second venture into creating a more inclusive Silicon Valley brand. After Airbnb received widespread complaints of discrimination from hosts, Holder and Laura Murphy, former head of the ACLU, were hired to craft an anti-discrimination policy for the company. Airbnb now has hosts accept its anti-discrimination rules before they can become part of the Airbnb community, and while there have been arguments that the rules are not actually effective and that they don’t go far enough, the new rules were at least a step in the right direction. Holder has always been a staunch advocate for civil rights and was fully committed to women’s rights during his tenure as attorney general–but is he truly being asked to overhaul Uber’s culture or simply being brought on for publicity reasons?

There are doubts that Holder’s team will be able to defeat sexism in an industry where women are rarely given a seat at the table within a nation where sexual harassment has gone unpunished for decades and where the sitting president has bragged about assaulting women. Uber, like most companies across Silicon Valley and around the world, prioritizes results over respect for women in the workplace. Multiple interviews from current and former Uber employees have revealed that the work environment can be very hostile but that no one reports it out of fear of retaliation.

Now that Fowler’s case has shone a spotlight on a reality that we often ignore, Uber has at least taken steps to acknowledge the problem immediately, both by hiring Holder and by issuing a message that acknowledges Fowler’s case when users try to delete the app. However, over the coming weeks as media attention shifts, Uber may have minimal incentives to improve its sexual harassment policies. Uber is still an exciting company for any young developer to work at, and while Fowler’s case may give female programmers and engineers pause, there is little reason to think that many male candidates will choose not to work at Uber because of Fowler’s story.

The most effective boycott would be taking #deleteUber a step further–don’t work for Uber. If Uber takes a hit in its hiring pool, that is when it will truly feel the pressure to reform. It is the responsibility of young, qualified candidates who are working in Silicon Valley to turn down offers at companies that subscribe to a toxic work environment that devalues female voices. Holder will be working to create new policies and investigate past offenses, but his investigation will be futile if we continue to ignore the results and sign up for Uber just the same.

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 Why Eric Holder Can’t Save Silicon Valley Alone appeared first on Law Street.

Following the sexual harassment scandal that resulted in Roger Ailes’ resignation from Fox News, the network reportedly secretly made a deal with TV personality Juliet Huddy about very similar accusations against its top host Bill O’Reilly. A letter obtained by the New York Times shows that Huddy had complained to Fox News that O’Reilly had persistently pursued a sexual relationship with her in 2011, which she rejected. At the time he had a lot of power over her career and when she kept rejecting him, he tried to sabotage it.

According to the letter, which was sent from Huddy’s lawyers to Fox News, O’Reilly repeatedly called her, invited her to his home, took her out for dinners, tried to kiss her, and once opened the door only wearing underwear. Fox News solved the situation by paying Huddy a six-figure sum in exchange for her silence. But the company also denied that the allegations were true.

Scoop here. Fox News settled sexual harassment allegations against Bill O’Reilly @nytmike https://t.co/Ih9szETS1n pic.twitter.com/orNudBbPbc

— Michael Tackett (@tackettdc) January 10, 2017

Huddy also accused long-time Fox executive Jack Abernethy of similar behavior, and said that he too had punished her professionally when she turned down his advances. But Fox News sided with O’Reilly and Abernethy. “The letter contains substantial falsehoods, which both men have vehemently denied,” said spokeswoman Irena Briganti on Monday. New York Magazine’s Gabriel Sherman tweeted that the network has settled sexual harassment complaints with at least four more women in the past few months.

According to two Fox sources, Fox News has secretly settled sexual harassment complaints with at least 4 women since Ailes left

— Gabriel Sherman (@gabrielsherman) January 10, 2017

Fox News apparently first learned about Huddy’s allegations in August, when her lawyers sent the letter. They agreed to the settlement on September 5, right around the time when they were dealing with Gretchen Carlson’s allegations against Roger Ailes. O’Reilly defended Ailes and called him the “best boss I’ve ever had.” He also claimed that Ailes was the victim, and was being targeted by the women because he was famous. He said: “In this country, every famous, powerful or wealthy person is a target. You’re a target, I’m a target. Anytime, somebody could come out and sue us, attack us, go to the press or anything like that.”

However, Ailes resigned, and Bill O’Reilly stayed on air and has since published two more books. To complicate things further, Roger Ailes is Huddy’s godfather and a good friend of her father, who also used to work at Fox. Her brother is also with the network.

This wasn’t the first time O’Reilly was the subject of sexual harassment accusations. In 2004, producer Andrea Mackris sued him for basically the same kind of behavior that Huddy claimed. He was also involved in a domestic dispute in 2015, when his teenage daughter testified in court that she had seen him choke her mother while he “dragged her down some stairs.”

Bill O’Reilly in November about Megyn Kelly: “You don’t like what’s happening in the workplace, go to human resources or leave.” https://t.co/EnKNJZNlP6

— (((Gabe Rosenberg))) (@GabrielJR) January 10, 2017

Huddy used to have segments on O’Reilly’s show. The letter from her lawyers describes how when she rejected O’Reilly, he started nitpicking her work, berating her, stopped preparing her before going on air, and cancelled a segment that she used to have on his show. Afraid of further retaliation, she didn’t complain. In September, she left the network. A source who Lawnewz talked to does not believe her claims and said that they were just concocted to get money from the network. Huddy has never publicly spoken about her allegations. But considering her close family ties to Ailes and that the settlement came at a time when Fox News was being hit hard in the media, that is likely explained by a confidentiality agreement, or simple loyalty.

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 Fox News Secretly Settled Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Bill O’Reilly appeared first on Law Street.

Journalist Lauren Duca appeared in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News on Friday, discussing the harassment of Ivanka Trump on an airplane, and the conversation soon turned into a heated debate. Carlson had brought Duca on to question her about one of her tweets that seemed to defend the man who shouted at Ivanka Trump. But when asked, Duca explained that she did not defend the action, she just thought that Trump’s children should not be exempt from scrutiny just because they are young, beautiful and, in the case of Ivanka, looks like she “smells good.”

Ivanka Trump is poised to become the most powerful woman in the world. Don’t let her off the hook because she looks like she smells good.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 23, 2016

But Carlson seemed to not accept Duca’s assurance that they did have the same opinion about the specific incident. Instead, he kept repeating his stance that Duca approved of shouting at people on airplanes, interrupted her, and talked over her. Finally he said, “stick to the thigh-high boots. You’re better at that,” and ended the segment while Duca was still talking. That last bit was a reference to Duca’s job at Teen Vogue. After the interview aired, many people hailed her as a hero and feminist role model for standing up to the male news anchor. But soon, the online threats started pouring in. Men hiding behind their computer screens started sending her emails and tweets with rape threats.

Messages like this — positioning sexual assault as a means of keeping women in line — make me want to fight even harder. pic.twitter.com/gtvMGQ9cpx

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 27, 2016

The threats peaked on Christmas Day. Duca said it was especially discouraging that many people, and even websites, claimed that she had defended the man harassing Ivanka, when she had explicitly said the opposite. She said she tried to discuss it with one of them, but he only answered “get raped” and was clearly not interested in a conversation. But she received a whole lot of support, too, and her number of Twitter followers had doubled by Tuesday afternoon, to over 104,000.

OK, good night @GeorgeTakei and everyone else pic.twitter.com/CMKd2zCPNn

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 27, 2016

The rape threats are truly challenging my faith in humanity, but this makes it all feel worth it. Love trumps hate. pic.twitter.com/DiIZAcFNOQ

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 25, 2016

And she had a message for the people harassing others online:

Harassment is a theft of social capital via time & energy. It’s exhausting and wholly unethical. It will also never be enough to silence me.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) December 28, 2016

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 Lauren Duca Receives Online Threats After Tucker Carlson Interview appeared first on Law Street.

Another high-profile political name is in the news again for an alleged sexual assault. And no, it’s not Donald Trump. This time, it’s Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas whose name has surfaced–brought up by an Alaskan lawyer on her Facebook page earlier this month. Moira Smith, who was 23 at the time, claims that Thomas groped her at a dinner in 1999.

And while we shouldn’t question why a woman comes forward with a claim of past sexual assault, Smith’s reasoning is worth noting–it seems that the accusations against Donald Trump that surfaced earlier this month propelled her to go public. Smith’s accusations, while certainly pointed at Thomas, also add to a recognizable pattern. Thomas once again joins the scores of high-profile, powerful men who are accused of sexual assault but seemingly never thought they’d get caught. Although it’s also worth noting that this isn’t the first time Thomas has been accused of this kind of behavior–the Anita Hill accusations of 1991 are just as noteworthy. If nothing else comes out of this election cycle and out of these myriad allegations, it seems like there is one, shining potential: we start to dismantle the idea that we should believe powerful men over these scores of women.

So let’s talk about those powerful men. Trump–who is currently not only facing scrutiny over his comments to Billy Bush in 2005, but also multiple accounts of women who say that he groped, sexually assaulted, or attempted to sexually assault them–is probably the first example that comes to mind. But Bill Clinton has also been accused of sexual assault multiple times, an issue that has resurfaced as Hillary Clinton runs for the office. And the conversation about powerful men and what they have previously been able to get away with hasn’t just been limited to political figures. Bill Cosby, once beloved, has now been accused of sexual assault by over 30 women (although, in aggravating fairness, it of course took a male comedian pointing out the allegations to really spark the outrage). Accusations against Woody Allen, while they haven’t stopped him from making movies, have certainly colored many’s perceptions of him.

All of these men have, in a lot of ways, gotten off kind of easily, and the women who come forward with assault allegations are still put through the ringer in the court of public opinion, which will do almost anything to avoid believing them. Nothing new there. But many people are also now backing them up, pointing out the ubiquity of sexual harassment and assault as an American woman.

After the Billy Bush/Donald Trump account surfaced, women started taking to Twitter to talk about the first time they were every sexually assaulted.

ME: 14, molested in pool by family friend. 19, ejaculated on by fratboy while asleep. 23, said NO, got shoved/spit on/called a dyke #NOTOKAY

— Sheila Callaghan (@sheilacalla) October 18, 2016

@kellyoxford birth father forced me to give him a blowjob. I was 11. Told family 2 years later. I was called a liar. #notokay

— Karen Ott Guerinot (@OttGuerinot) October 16, 2016

@kellyoxford 22- boss asked for me to rub his shoulders-then said it turned him on. i left the room and was fired the next day.#notokay

— anita (@peezer01) October 15, 2016

@kellyoxford I was 12 alone with a man in an elevator, he felt up my then not developed breasts. I’ve never told anyone until now. #NOTOKAY

— Dee Harlow (@DWanderlustress) October 14, 2016

Almost every single woman has a story like that. So why is it so hard to believe that powerful men are in some cases the cause? Are they somehow immune from contributing to an issue that is clearly pervasive? How is it easier to believe that women who accuse powerful men are only after their money or fame when it’s been shown time and time again that that’s not the case?

Smith even said she came forward specifically because of the current movement to speak out against sexual harassment and assault. In an interview she explained her motivations saying:

I have an eight-year-old daughter. Before last weekend, I had subconsciously convinced myself she would never go through this and now I know she almost certainly will. I am responsible to help minimize the risks and help her to understand what to do if she does, and to model the behavior that it’s not OK. It has changed my worldview as a mother.

She also said:

We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women. That willingness by men in power to take advantage of vulnerable women relies on an unspoken pact that the women will not speak up about it. Why? Because they are vulnerable. Because they are star-struck. Because they don’t want to be whiners. Because they worry about their career if they do speak out. But silence no longer feels defensible; it feels complicit.

Smith’s statements are, in a lot of ways, the point: “We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women.” Maybe the end result of these accusations is that we start treating them more as more than just myths.

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 Are We Finally Going to Start Believing that Powerful Men Can be Sexual Assailants? appeared first on Law Street.

Both Donald Trump and Eric Trump have made some truly upsetting comments about women and workplace sexual harassment over the last few days–statements that show that neither have any idea about the issues that many women face in the workplace. And it’s worth asking: is this the kind of treatment women can expect in the Trumps’ America?

It all started when Donald Trump was asked about the sexual harassment allegations against Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, who is stepping down as chairman and CEO. Chuck Todd was interviewing Trump and asked about his thoughts on the allegations against Ailes, and Trump spouted off some routine victim-blamey rhetoric about how women who praised Ailes in the past couldn’t possibly have done so if he had been less than polite to them in any way. Trump said:

Some of the women that are complaining, I know how much he’s helped them…And when they write books….and say wonderful things about him….[N]ow, all of a sudden, they’re saying these horrible things about him.

Trump, is obviously ignoring the fact that oftentimes women have to turn a blind eye to inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment from a boss or higher up at a company if they fear retribution at work in any way.

Then, Kirsten Powers, a journalist for USA Today, followed up with Trump on the topic. She framed it as a more personal issue–how would he feel if his beloved daughter, Ivanka, experienced sexual harassment at work. His answer?

He hopes that she would find a new job.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Trump is advocating that if a woman experiences harassment at work, it should be on her to go out and find a new job. Never mind the fact that she could have to relocate for this new job, could have to give up other work relationships she has cultivated, will have to consider whether she can transfer her benefits, and so many other related issues. Nope, it’s on the woman to leave that environment, not on men to treat women fairly in the workplace.

Then, Trump’s son, Eric Trump, was asked a similar question. He was asked by Charlie Rose whether a woman leaving her job was really the solution his father was advocating for, or whether “perhaps, a better answer would be drawing it to the attention of Human Resources and other things that we can do with regard to sexual harassment in the workplace.” The younger Trump’s response was just as illuminating–he said:

Hey, listen, we all run a company, my father runs a company, we take this – that is an absolute no-go anywhere, and that’s very much the case. I think what he’s saying is, Ivanka is a strong, powerful woman, she wouldn’t allow herself to be objected to it, and by the way, you should take it up with Human Resources, and I think she would as a strong person, at the same time, I don’t think she would allow herself to be subjected to that. I think that’s a point he was making, and I think he did so well.

So while Eric Trump conceded that if someone is being harassed they should take it up with HR, he also managed to imply that only non-strong women “allow” themselves to be subjected to sexual harassment. Again, the younger Trump puts on the onus of sexual harassment on women–not men.

Suppose that Trump does become president. What does this mean for his presidency? What if a woman in say, his cabinet, is sexually harassed, is she supposed to leave that job? Is it because she’s a weak woman? That’s obviously an extreme example, but as we get closer to the general election in November, it’s worth asking–will Trump’s actions speak as loud as his words?

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 Let’s Talk About the Trump Family’s WTF Comments on Sexual Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Silicon Valley and its main industries–tech companies and venture capital firms–has been long under fire for its lack of gender diversity. From depressing statistics about the diversity of various tech companies, to female developer Adria Richards live tweeting sexist comments at a tech conference in 2013, Silicon Valley has done plenty to live up to that reputation. However, if you’re looking for a pretty damning example of sexism in the industry, look no further than the recent Ellen Pao-Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers case, decided late last week. The decision concluded that the prominent VC firm didn’t discriminate against former employee Pao.

Pao, who is now the interim CEO of social media and news site “Reddit,” started at the prestigious venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers in 2005. A graduate of Princeton, Harvard Law, and Harvard Business School, she was brought on as the chief of staff for John Doerr, one of the senior partners at the firm. Doerr–who was involved in the success of Netscape, Amazon, and Google–is well known as one of Kleiner’s most prominent voices. Pao was then made a junior investing partner, but was never made a senior partner, and was fired in 2012.

Her suit alleged that she was passed over for the senior partner promotion based on sex discrimination, that she was retaliated against for complaining about sex discrimination, and that she was fired because of the complaints she levied. Kleiner claimed that they treated her fairly, and passed her over because she was not going to be a good fit for the job. Pao argues that men with similar profiles and histories were promoted when she wasn’t. Pao’s suit asked for $16 million total, a combination of both punitive and compensatory damages.

The suit was decided against Pao–in other words, it was concluded that Kleiner was not guilty of sex discrimination. Based on the information that the jury had, I have no reason to believe they decided the case as anything other than fairly and to the best of their ability. But there’s an important distinction here–Kleiner can both be not discriminatory and still be a really crappy place to work.

That’s pretty much exactly what happened–Pao brought up a lot of pretty bad evidence about Kleiner’s employees and culture. While Kleiner did end up successful in the suit, they were still dragged through through the mud. Examples cited by Pao include Doerr, who had seemingly always been one of her biggest supporters and mentors, saying to an investor that she had “a female chip on her shoulder.” She also complained that partner Ajit Nazre retaliated against her after their consensual relationship ended. When she complained to Ray Lane, another high-ranking partner, he told her to marry Nazre to solve her problems. She claims another partner gave her a book of sexually explicit drawings, and that yet another didn’t invite women to parties because they “kill the buzz.” It wasn’t all just about Pao, either, as there was discussion of an incident in which Nazre showed up at a female junior partner’s hotel room in just a bathrobe, propositioning her.

So, while Kleiner may not have been guilty of discriminating against Pao specifically because of her gender, it’s pretty clear that they didn’t act appropriately at every turn. This isn’t any sort of surprising revelation–gender discrimination and sexism have long been alleged in Silicon Valley–but this case certainly didn’t help to dispel that concept. While Pao didn’t get her money, she certainly made her point.

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 Ellen Pao Loses Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Kleiner appeared first on Law Street.

Since its appearance on the web at the end of October, a video produced by Hollaback! has gone viral and caused a lot of controversy. Hollaback! is an organization dedicated to ending the unfortunate cultural phenomenon of street harassment, more commonly known as “catcalling.”

The video features a young woman dressed in black jeans and a black t-shirt, who walked through the streets of New York City for ten hours while someone walked ahead of her with a hidden camera. The result was a disturbing PSA that highlights exactly how bad street harassment can be. If you haven’t seen it, take a moment to watch the video below.

As always, when the subject of catcalling comes up, it splits viewers into one of two camps:

1. Confusion: Some viewers did not understand what the big deal was, because shouting your appreciation for a stranger’s appearance is a compliment right? Why can’t girls just take the compliments, say “hello,” smile, and move on? (FYI that was sarcasm). Others took note of the fact that white men seem to be absent from the video, and cited it as an example of racism.

2. Outrage: Some viewers identified with the woman’s experience in the video, or maybe never experienced that level of harassment, but declared their support of the organization’s mission.

@iHollaback @staceysager7 The video was shocking! I had no idea how pervasive that problem is. What really disgusted me were the comments.

— Carl Weiner (@carlweiner) October 28, 2014

Street harassment is a form of violence against women. Period. http://t.co/6Ql7qGthxk #VAW @TheCurrentCBC @iHollaback @FeministaJones — Ernestine’s WS (@ErnestinesWS) October 31, 2014

They should remake that catcalling video, starring my Twitter inbox.

— YAYzorblades (@YAYzorblades) November 2, 2014

The point of the video is not to target one race over another as the source of catcalling. It was to show that street harassment is not just men saying “hello” or “hi there” to women passing by, but rather objectifying them regardless of what they are wearing, what race they are, or if they know them. These are not compliments, they are an example of men perceiving themselves as entitled to women’s bodies. Saying “hello” is one thing, but it is rarely just “hello” or “good morning.” No one, man or woman, walks down the street wishing a stranger would talk to them and give them lewd glances or stares.

And catcalling is definitely not a problem restricted to New York City or minorities. A woman who lives in Minneapolis began a campaign called Cards Against Harassment this summer after becoming fed up with the amount of catcalls she and her friends received in the Twin Cities. She even recorded herself handing the cards out to the men who catcall her, informing them that their attention was unwarranted and unwanted.

Reactions to Cards Against Harrassment were much the same as the reactions to Hollaback!’s recent video. Men and women alike questioned why the woman bothered doing this, or why she didn’t just take the compliments. The consensus seems to be that yes, catcalling exists, but there is no way to stop it so why try?

I absolutely hate that mindset. If something is wrong, shouldn’t we do everything in our power to change it?

Catcalling and street harassment is annoying, uncalled for, and in some cases dangerous. Greeting a stranger on the street is one thing, but commenting on her appearance, telling her to smile, shouting profane names at her or otherwise objectifying her is unnecessary. When in the history of the world has a catcall ever gotten the catcaller positive attention from the victim?

Unfortunately, street harassment is a deeply ingrained part of our male-dominated society. It will be extremely difficult to eradicate, but it is possible. As organizations like Cards Against Harassment and Hollaback! have shown, awareness of the issue is growing rapidly and the more people see it as wrong the more likely it will be that it disappears.

There are, in fact, areas of the world where street harassment doesn’t really happen. Take this video shot in Auckland, New Zealand, in which a model tries to replicate the Hollaback! PSA.

Aside from a request for directions and one man trying to talk to her, the model received hardly any reaction from people as she walked down the street. The same model has said that she has resided in New York City before, and the catcalling there “was extreme … I don’t want, or like the attention at all. It’s not a compliment.”

If the New Zealand video should show us anything, it is not that catcalling doesn’t exist, but that it does not have to exist. 

Men and women of the world, take note: shouting at strangers on the street is never wanted. Women don’t go out wishing random men would tell them they’re pretty, just as men don’t walk around expecting women to tell them they’re handsome. Stop catcalling, and the problem stops.

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 Just Stop it With the Street Harassment Already appeared first on Law Street.

I was recently married, and my husband is in the armed services. While military life isn’t quite what Army Wives would have you believe, there are definitely some aspects I have had to get used to. One of these is the dress code. Recently I went to the PX (think a T.J. Maxx with Wal-Mart prices) on our new base, and encountered a woman being turned away from the door because her midriff was showing. When I say “showing” I mean her tank top had ridden up about two inches. She did not look inappropriately dressed at all — clearly she had just thrown on her tank and jean shorts to do some shopping — yet she was being told she was in violation of the rules.

This was not the first time I had come into contact with strict military clothing restrictions. While my then-fiance was still stationed in Hawaii, I flew there so we could get married and honeymoon on the islands. While there, I ended up — apparently — being in violation of the dress code not once, but twice.

The first time happened shortly after the wedding, when my husband, some friends, and I went to a bar on the Naval base. It was country-themed, with a huge floor for line dancing, so I dressed accordingly: high-waisted skater skirt, polka-dotted crop top, Keds, and bandana headband. When showing our IDs to the bouncer, he stopped me and said, “Ma’am, you’re going to have to pull your shirt down or your skirt up.”

Now, this was the first time I had had any exposure to the dress code. My husband, not being known to wear crop tops himself, had not yet told me about it. I was understandably confused; barely an inch of my lower rib cage was showing, and my skirt was not short by any standard. Not wanting to cause a scene, I pulled down my shirt and was let in.

My second violation was pointed out when we went to the on-base golf course. I had on pastel shorts from the Gap and a white tank top. Not a spaghetti-strap tank, mind you (which would not have been a violation anyway), but a thick-strapped, loose fitting, high-neckline shirt. The man checking people in took my husband’s ID, wrote us down to tee off, then looked at me and said: “Ma’am, that type of shirt is not allowed here.”

I believe my jaw might have involuntarily dropped open. I looked down at my shirt and back up at him, saying “Tank tops? Or white shirts?”

Not amused by my sarcasm, he informed me that tank tops were not allowed and that to be let on the course I would have to buy a shirt in their shop or go home and change. Excuse me, sir, if I don’t want to buy a $50 Puma polo just to play golf. Needless to say, we did not play golf that day.

My point with sharing these examples is not to say that the military needs to take away its dress code. I understand that there is a necessity for uniformity: it makes things easier to regulate, tampers jealousy, and creates a global standard for all active military and their families. Women are not the only ones who have regulations. Men most certainly cannot be found in cropped off short-shorts. My point is that uniformity is not, truly, the only reason women have their clothing choices regulated.

Personally, I have no problem with the way other people dress. They’re expressing their individual style, wearing what they find comfortable, or dressing up for a special occasion (like going to a country bar). I would never call a woman “trashy” for wearing a tight-fitting dress or 6-inch heels, and I certainly wouldn’t say that lewd behavior toward a woman dressed that way is justified. Believe it or not, women DO NOT dress the way they do for the benefit of men or other women. 

When an organization’s dress code seeks to put a stop to those “trashy” fashion trends, they are encouraging uniformity, yes, but they are also saying that a woman showing her midriff, or her shoulders, is inviting inappropriate attention. That somehow the way she dresses makes it her fault men sexually harass her.

Let me explain. The US military continues to have a terrifyingly high number of sexual assault cases each year, yet thousands more go unreported. They are not, by any means, the only organization that has the same problem. This is a huge issue, and one that will not be solved easily because victims are encouraged to keep their assaults quiet. Dress codes like the one the military has in place are there not just for uniformity, but to discourage sexual assault.

If this doesn’t seem ridiculous to you, let me put it another way. In an episode of How I Met Your Mother, Marshall seduces Lily by showing her his calves. Take a look at this quick clip from the episode:

The scene is hilarious because a woman put into a sexual frenzy by the sight of a man’s legs seems ludicrous. Yet, when a woman goes to report a rape, one of the questions she is asked is “What were you wearing?” As if the sight of her bare shoulders caused a man to force himself on her. Telling women what they can and cannot wear to discourage sexual assault is telling them that, somehow, it is their fault when it happens.

Let’s be clear: WHAT SOMEONE IS WEARING DOES NOT JUSTIFY NOR CAUSE SEXUAL ASSAULT.

So, do I think the military and other organizations with similar dress regulations need to take those regulations away? No. Like I said before, I get why they’re there. What I am saying is the reasons behind those dress codes need to change. Instead of encouraging women to cover up to prevent rape, let’s encourage men to be respectful. Instead of saying “cover your midriff” let’s say “don’t catcall someone on the street.” Only when we acknowledge the problem can we change the perspective.

—

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 [Florian Ramel 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 Uniformity Isn’t the Only Reason Organizations Enforce Dress Codes appeared first on Law Street.

One of the trendiest online discussions recently has been about street harassment — namely men catcalling women on the street. Earlier this month, Buzzfeed made a hilarious video about what men really “say” when they catcall.

As funny as that video is though, street harassment is a real issue. At least 65 percent of women report experiencing it, often in the form of lewd comments. I, for one, have experienced it more times than I can count. I know I’m lucky too, it has not gone beyond comments hurled at me as I walk down the street — many women also report having men grab at them, being flashed, or worse.

In a significantly more serious set of videos, women have started videotaping, and sometimes confronting, their street-harassers. One of these women, Lindsey from Minnesota, has started a campaign called “Cards Against Harassment.” They’re clever, to say the least. You can download a set of ten of them to hand out to guys who approach you on the street. For example, one of these cards reads, “I know you think you just paid me a compliment, but unwanted commentary on my appearance by strangers on the street makes me feel self-conscious and objectified.”

There have been a few different hashtags created to bring awareness to the problem of street harassment: #ThatsWhatHeSaid, #NotJustHello, and #YouOkSis are some of the most prominent. Take a second to scroll through them, if you feel up to it. They all contain truly horrifying incidences of street harassment.

In general, I feel like I’ve seen way more op-eds about how street harassment is wrong and how to deal with it in the last few months than I ever remember. For the most part, most commentators on the internet argue against street harassment and vow to put a stop to catcalling.

But then there are some, both men and women, who don’t see a problem with it. For example, New York Post blogger Doree Lewak wrote, “Hey, ladies — catcalls are flattering! Deal with it!” There’s a lot to be said about this article, firstly that it reads almost like satire. I genuinely can’t tell whether it is or no t– but my money is on the fact that it’s probably not satire, but rather a genuine viewpoint created by using hyperbolic language and lame attempts at being funny. Lewak explains that she feels empowered by being catcalled and wolf-whistled. She encourages other women to feel the same — starting with her provocative headline: “Deal with It.” She also points out that some catcalls do still make her feel uncomfortable, pointing out,

Of course, not all catcalls are created equal. The good ones are innocuous, not crass or obscene. To clarify, a compliment is “You’re beautiful,” and not “I like your nipples,” a crude comment beyond the point of no return.

The entire thing is gross in a lot of ways. And even if it’s supposed to funny, it’s clear that this woman has never felt actually harassed by catcalls. It’s clear that she’s never walked home late at night, and had someone — probably drunkenly — yell something obscene at her. If she had, she wouldn’t be writing a poorly done satirical piece making fun of all the women who had experienced that kind of fear.

Because #YesAllWomen, yes all people, need to stand together to eradicate the kind of harassment that so many of us experience. It’s not cute, it’s not funny, it’s just plain rude. And articles like the one Lewak wrote just don’t help.

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 Women Shouldn’t Have to Deal With Street Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, clothing retailers American Apparel and Aldo fired fashion photographers Terry Richardson and Dov Charney for sexually harassing models. Several models have spoken out about their inappropriate behavior over the last few years, so why did these companies wait until now to react? Justice didn’t last long in Charney’s case, however, as the American Apparel founder and CEO was rehired a week later as strategic consultant while the company reviews any past accusations of sexual harassment.

The modeling industry is one of the few professions where workers are not always treated like real people, because the job description mostly entails selling their bodies. Until fairly recently, there were few if any laws protecting model’s rights. Last year veteran model Coco Rocha and the Model Alliance helped pass a law in the state of New York recognizing models under the age of 18 as child performers, limiting the number of hours they are allowed to work. The Model Alliance has also drafted a Model’s Bill of Rights stating that agents and photographers are to maintain a professional relationship with the models they work with, and it also calls for models to be informed ahead of time if a shoot will involve nudity so they can give prior consent. No model under the age of 17 can pose nude or semi-nude.

But there is also a bigger issue at hand: the female model’s word against that of these reputable male photographers. In this interview with HuffPost Live, Model Alliance founder Sara Ziff explains why she will never work with Richardson again and why models may feel pressured to put themselves in compromising positions, when working with photographers like him.

Ziff mentions the Model Alliance’s amnesty service as a way to provide legal aide to models who have been taken advantage of by photographers, since there are no official laws to protect them in situations like this. The Model Alliance’s efforts are certainly a step in the right direction, but potential clients like Harper’s Bazaar, American Apparel, and Aldo ultimately have the power to refuse to work with alleged offenders. These companies most likely have a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment protecting all of their other employees, so why not their models too?

Somewhere along the way, an inherent double-standard formed in the industry. Despite the decent amount of women in corporate fashion positions, the male gaze still governs a lot of what we see in magazines. These models lose their rights as humans because someone like Terry Richardson is an untouchable fixture in the industry. Ziff mentions that a model’s career isn’t really legitimized until she shoots with Richardson. Models may feel obligated to do whatever he tells them to do and he clearly takes advantage of that if he tries to engage in sexual activity with them.

If you need further convincing that there’s a double-standard, here are some of Richardson’s ads with the female models replaced with men.

Courtesy of Lauren Wade via Takepart

Notice this ad blatantly says “For Men.” Fashion is stereotypically a women’s industry yet most ads appear to be created for the male gaze. Is the fragrance for men or are those breasts for men?

Meanwhile, some women have defended Richardson when he’s come under fire. Musicians Miley Cyrus and Sky Ferreira are publicly known to be friends with the photographer and continue to work with him year in and year out. Ferreira recently claimed, “I have never been forced or manipulated into anything. I made a music video with him and I have never felt uncomfortable with Terry and had 99 percent of the creative control.” Perhaps this is because artists are protected by their own celebrity and do not have the same sense of anonymity as a model would. Someone like Richardson may see a model as just a face or body, whereas he may want to go out of his way to please a famous client like Cyrus or Ferreira.

Charney and Richardson have been able to keep their jobs for so long, despite these allegations because they have taken advantage of women whose jobs involve using their own bodies to market a product. Both women and men in the industry, however, need to realize that models are not mannequins, they are people employed to do a job that happens to involve their bodies. The job description by no means includes having their bodies violated for the pleasure of others. Ziff says it herself: “The choice between an uncomfortable sexual situation and your job, that’s the definition of sexual harassment.” If sexual harassment is unacceptable in all other workplaces, it should be unacceptable in these models’ line of work as well.

The Model Alliance is definitely taking a step in the right direction by offering a safe space for models to turn, but in order to guarantee absolute safety in their workplace, legal action must be taken. The laws passed by the state of New York also only really protect underage runway models. Sexual harassment issues lie predominantly with print models, and there need to be laws to protect them both inside and outside the studio. Not all models may belong to the Model Alliance, so if there were official laws protecting them, they might not be so afraid to speak up about harassment.

While it may be difficult to enact such regulations on an international level, the Model Alliance could at least start on a national level in collaboration with the Council of Fashion Designers of America. The industry has a responsibility to protect all of its employees, and that includes its models, the literal faces of fashion.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured Image Courtesy of [American Apparel via Flickr]

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 Why Does the Fashion Industry Protect Alleged Sex Offenders Over Models? appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning loves! How many of you have been staying off the internet this week, thanks to my post on Tuesday? LOL none of you. Just kidding! If anything, you’re all hitting the interwebs harder than usual. This Pacific Standard piece is BLOWING UP. The number of response pieces it’s triggered is seriously impressive.

So! I’d say the theme of cyberspace this week is — women face crazy harassment online and it’s seriously a problem. Like, for serious.

So let’s ride that wave, shall we? Because some awesome, hysterical things are happening. Specifically, this.

A dude Reddit user named OKCThrowaway22221 (apparently Reddit is the place where our middle-school, AIM usernames live on?) decided to conduct a little experiment. He had this hypothesis that women totally have it easier in the world of online dating, so he made a fake profile as a lady, and decided to see what would happen.

This guy lasted TWO HOURS. That is all. That is how traumatizing the results of his little experiment were. SO BAD, that he had to quit after only two hours.

In his words, here’s what happened.

“Before I could even fill out my profile at all, I already had a message in my inbox from a guy. It wasn’t a mean message, but I found it odd that I would get a message already. So I sent him a friendly hello back and kind of joked that I hadn’t even finished my profile, how could he be interested.”

Yes, how COULD he be interested? Probably because he doesn’t give a shit what your profile says, champ. He thinks you’ve got a vagina and he wants to use it.

It gets worse. As OKCThrowaway22221 filled in the profile, the messages were literally coming in faster than he could keep up with them. Again, from guys who knew absolutely NOTHING about the person they were messaging, other than the fact that were was allegedly a vagina involved. It got old pretty quick.

“At first I thought it was fun…but as more and more messages came (either replies or new ones I had about 10 different guys message me within 2 hours) the nature of them continued to get more and more irritating. Guys were full-on spamming my inbox with multiple messages before I could reply to even one asking why I wasn’t responding and what was wrong. Guys would become hostile when I told them I wasn’t interested in NSA sex, or guys that had started normal and nice quickly turned the conversation into something explicitly sexual in nature. Seemingly nice dudes in quite esteemed careers asking to hook up in 24 hours and sending them naked pics of myself despite multiple times telling them that I didn’t want to.”

OKCThrowaway22221 found the whole situation pretty upsetting.

“I would be lying if I said it didn’t get to me. I thought it would be some fun thing… but within a 2 hour span it got me really down and I was feeling really uncomfortable with everything. I ended up deleting my profile at the end of 2 hours and kind of went about the rest of my night with a very bad taste in my mouth.”

OKCThrowaway22221 came away from his experiment with a different conclusion than he’d expected — that women actually have a harder time in the online dating world. Yep, it’s rough shit being harassed by gazillions of guys during all hours of the day. Emotional tolls are taken — and hopefully that’s all.

But our friend over at Reddit isn’t the only person who’s conducting online dating experiments. There’s also Cracked writer Alli Reed, who wanted to test her own hypothesis — that men will literally message any woman with a profile. Hoping she was wrong, she created a fake profile for The Worst Woman in the World, AKA AaronCarterFan. Here it is. Prepare to laugh your ass off/puke all over your laptop.

She’s the worst, am I right? No one would ever want to date her! Definitely not. But they did.  She got 150 messages in 24 hours.

So, Alli decided to add another approach to her experiment. With her reply messages, she’d have to convince these guys that she was, in fact, The Worst Woman in the World. After all, maybe these guys didn’t actually read the profile?

She bragged about bullying children, she boasted about the skill with which she could fake being pregnant to exhort money from unsuspecting suitors. She even asked one guy to let her pull out his teeth.

NO ONE WAS DETERRED. Everyone still wanted a piece of the diabolical AaronCarterFan.

Alli’s takeaway was seriously kindhearted. Here’s her advice to the douchenozzles who were interested in her evil creation.

“Men of the world: You are better than this. I know many of you would never message AaronCarterFan, but many of you would, and a whole bunch of you did. You’re better than that. There are women and men out there who are smart, and kind, and challenging, and honest, and a lot of other really positive adjectives. You don’t want someone who will pull out your teeth and then sue you for child support; you deserve someone who will make you want to be better than you are, and will want to be better because of you. You deserve happiness, and love, and adventure. Be brave. Don’t settle.”

She’s a really nice lady, am I right? I’d love to be her friend.

BUT. I’m calling bullshit on the idea that the most important thing we can take away from these two online dating experiments is that men are shallow and dumb and maybe have low self-esteem. This is true. Some men do struggle with these challenges. The struggle is real, and we feel your pain, guys. We really do.

But. We’re not talking about destructive relationship patterns or unfortunate, self-sabotaging behavior. We’re talking about internet harassment. So here’s the big takeaway, folks.

Drumroll, please.

Men objectify women to a disturbing degree. The reason they’ll message a woman whose online dating profile isn’t filled out yet is the same reason they’ll message a woman whose profile clearly shows that she’s The Worst Woman in the World.

They don’t care who you are. The fact that you are a person, with real thoughts and feelings, doesn’t matter to them. You’re really just a sex toy. The equivalent of a super awesome blow-up doll. An object.

This is you. Courtesy of Jes via Flickr.

Feminism in the U.S. has made a ton of major gains over the last century. We’ve earned the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to play sports, the right to hold jobs, and the right to own property. In some states, we even have the right to control our own bodies. Because of all these gains, we’re often told that feminism is done. It’s over. It’s served its purpose, its goals have been met, and we can all ride off into the gender equality sunset.

But that’s a load of shit, designed to keep women from continuing to fight the feminist fight. Society’s true colors come out on the Internet, where anonymity and a lack of accountability invite everyone to drop their inhibitions. You don’t have to pretend to be PC on OKCupid. You can be who you really are, and no one will be the wiser.

You can demand sex and naked photos from a woman you don’t know — and get supremely pissed when she says no. You can be your douchiest, most asshole-iest self.

So loves, do me a favor. Keep fighting the good fight. OKCThrowaway22221 and AaronCarterFan clearly prove that it’s not over.

—

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 [me and the sysop 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 Ladies, the Men of OKCupid Think You’re a Blow-Up Doll appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, feminist writer Amanda Hess wrote a groundbreaking cover story for Pacific Standard Magazine about online harassment and its effect on women. Have you read it yet? You really should. It’s making major waves, and is quickly becoming required reading in the 21^st century feminist canon.

Thanks for sending this my way, Ashley! So much love directed at you right now.

To sum up the gist of this gloriously lengthy story, Hess describes her own experiences with online harassment, cites the experiences of a handful of other feminist writers, and lays down some disturbing statistics about how big a problem online harassment is for women.

According to Hess, despite the fact that women and men have been logging online in equal numbers since 2000, incidents of Internet harassment are disproportionately directed at women. Between 2000 and 2012, 3,787 people reported online harassment to the volunteer organization Working to Halt Online Abuse — and 72.5 percent of reporting victims were female.

In 2006, researchers at the University of Maryland decided to test this phenomenon, creating a bunch of fake online accounts and sending them off into chat rooms. The results of this little experiment? Accounts with feminine-sounding usernames received an average of 100 violent, threatening, and/or sexual messages each day. Masculine-sounding usernames received 3.7.

Now, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that no one is surprised by this bullshit. Offline, in the real, flesh-and-blood world, women are routinely harassed in every arena of our lives. At work, on the street, at home, in our beds, at our grandpa’s 90^th birthday party, at our cousin’s wedding — the list could go on.

And it’s no mystery why. In this patriarchal culture, women are considered inherently less than — less strong, less smart, less human. Less worthy of respect and equal treatment. Feminism has made its gains, for sure. We’re allowed to go to work and own property and forgo marriage and all kinds of awesome things.

But we’re still only paid an average of 77 cents to a man’s dollar. We still bear the brunt of household labor, in addition to our day jobs. We’re still saddled with the bulk of childcare responsibilities. We’re still raped and beaten and murdered in depressingly high numbers, every day. So, given the reality of our daily lives, it makes sense that the harassment would continue online.

You don’t have to look far to find concrete examples of this shit. This week, following the publication of Hess’ cover story, Pacific Standard Magazine is running a whole mess of personal stories, sent in by women who’ve experienced sexual harassment online. Go read them and throw up all over your keyboard. Or, head over to xoJane, to read one of the most epic accounts of dealing with online harassment’s magnum opus, revenge porn.

Or, for a more fun experience, ask your friends! I’m sure they have stories for you. One of my besties, who just recently deactivated her OkCupid account, gave me this little gem when I asked her if she had any nausea-inducing stories to share with me. (She had a zillion to choose from.)

“There was a guy who told me he wanted to eat my ass out in Bobst during finals. I responded with outrage. He became enraged and told me I was ugly and was very cruel. Then I calmly explained to him he was harassing me and that his responses were inappropriate and that there were real people on the other end of the profiles and I like to think he learned something.”

WARNING: Turning harassment into a teachable moment may not be something to try at home. Not for the faint of heart.

I even have my own Internet harassment stories. When I was in middle school, I briefly dated a handful of douchebags. (We’re using the term “dated” very loosely here. Think late night phone calls and hallway handholding.) I nixed each one from my life after a few months, but years later, when Facebook became all the rage in high school, they all managed to find their way back into my universe.

One tracked down my phone number through mutual friends and starting calling me, leaving voicemails, and basically being a huge pain in my ass. Another took it upon himself to send me a lengthy message about how he hoped I would die a slow, painful death as punishment for being a big, scary dyke.

Not fun, you guys. Not fun at all.

So, the moral of the story here? Internet harassment, like flesh-and-blood harassment, is a real thing. And the more we all start talking about it, the more likely it will be taken seriously.

So, what’s your Internet harassment story? 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 [Devon Buchanan 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 Internet Harassment Is a Major Problem for Women appeared first on Law Street.

Six months out of law school, I’m finding myself starting over personally, professionally, and even socially.  Some, but not all, of my friends totally understand where I’m coming from with regard to this sentiment.  One of these friends is Drake (naturally, because we’re both half-Jewish, Canadian former child stars turned world-famous rappers).  You didn’t know?

You guys! I double majored!

When I started work after college, I was really at the bottom of the bottom.  I accepted my status because I only had a bachelor’s degree.  Not just any kind of Bachelor’s Degree- A bachelor of Arts.  The B.A. in 2013 is like…a three legged puppy.  It’s cute and it has endless possibilities, but its path takes a little bit longer. A lot of people can be successful with them, but most of us have to spend two to four additional (miserable) years in graduate programs so that our salaries can catch up to our lifestyles.  And by most of us, I mean liberal arts majors.

“What are these lifestyles,” you ask? Oh, you know, just trying to live in a nice apartment with MAYBE one roommate, while still being able to afford things like food, clothing, entertainment, and repayments to a horrible woman named Sallie Mae.  (If you haven’t met her yet, trust me when I say she’s garbage).

I’m super anti-guns, and this is NOT a literal interpretation of how I feel about educational debt. It’s close though.

I’ve got a J.D. and I’m working! #Winning!

Trying to rediscover having nights and weekends to myself is tricky.  Knowing that there are no more winter, spring, and summer breaks is depressing. Contemplating grown-up stuff like 401Ks, a savings account, and navigating the treacherous terrain that is a Thursday night happy hour is stressful. We’re at the bottom, and trying to get to wherever the heck “here” is located. Or at least I’m not “here,” despite being a law school graduate for half a year.  Doesn’t that count for something?  Oh.  No?  Still at the bottom.

And it’s the same at work!  Let’s say you’ve gotten a new job.  Even if the job isn’t a perfect fit for you, it’s nice to be productive, learn through professional experiences, and become a cog that helps your organization continue to be a well-oiled machine.

However, there is a lot of bureaucracy in certain jobs, and a lot of steps that are necessary solely because that’s how it’s been done in the past.  Sometimes these steps aren’t helpful, and are relics of a different time.  In other words, they suck.

Law School Prepared Me for this…right?

In 2013, I’m not sure if I need sexual harassment training to let me know that it’s inappropriate to call a female co-worker “baby” or “honey,” and I definitely don’t need to be reminded that I shouldn’t offer said female co-worker a massage.  I’m not Don Draper. Also, the Friends episode where Chandler’s boss kept slapping him on the butt taught me all I need to know about where my hands can and cannot go.

Conversely, there isn’t training with regard to other types of workplace discrimination. The Senate recently passed an anti-bias gay-rights bill.  This bill seeks to combat the lack of explicit protections with regard to sexual orientation in the workplace. Areas like this are where employers should be putting their training muster, methinks.  BUT WHO AM I?

I can’t suggest that! I’m the new guy.  I sit quietly and listen to all of the banter that definitely would NOT pass the “safe space” test of my small, liberal arts college. Alas, I ride the wave until I move up the totem pole.  You know…”here.”

And when being at the bottom gets to be too much, just say to yourself, “just hold on, we’re going home.”

See? Just like Drake.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [ken Sutherland via Flickr]

[.gifs provided by @tkylemac and MTV Buzzworthy, duh.]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Started from the Bottom, Now We’re…Where? appeared first on Law Street.

Bumbling Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has made waves in recent weeks for the revelation that he once smoked crack while “in a drunken stupor” this February. I’d love to say that this was the only dumb thing Mayor Ford has ever done, but where would the fun be in that? Let’s look at a countdown of Mayor Ford’s oddest, most embarrassing, and downright idiotic moments.

Courtesy of Shaun Merritt via Flickr.

15. That one time the Toronto City Council tried to strip him of his power after the crack smoking scandal and he compared his side of the story to…The Gulf War.

“This, folks, reminds me of when — and I was watching with my brother — when Saddam attacked Kuwait. And President Bush said, ‘I warn you, I warn you, I warn you, do not.’ Well, folks, if you think American-style politics is nasty, you guys have just attacked Kuwait. Mark my words, friends, this is going to be outright war in the next election, and I’m going to do everything in my power — everything in my power — to beat you guys.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: C’mon, Mayor Ford. The Gulf War, really? I hope we’re not talking about that Gulf War where tens of thousands of people were killed. You’re comparing your reelection campaign to a deadly war? A+ for complete lack of sensitivity.

14. In 2002, when Mayor Ford was a City Councilor, there was a discussion about putting a homeless shelter in his district. Mayor Ford made the always eloquent point that instead of having a “public meeting” about said homeless shelter, maybe a “public lynching” would be more appropriate.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Do I even have to answer this one? This wasn’t Mayor Ford standing up for his constituents like he claimed, it was him being a gigantic jerk about a legitimate proposal. That doesn’t really incite compassion in the hearts of those who should be voting for him.

13.  In 2006, Mayor Ford went to a Toronto Maple Leafs game. Mayor Ford got wasted. Mayor Ford then got kicked out of the Toronto Maple Leafs game. He got kicked out because he was screaming at, berating, and swearing at a nice couple from out of town.

Courtesy of Tim Alamenciak via Wikipedia.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Why was he screaming at some random Toronto visitors? Did they root for the other team or something? Now, I’m not going to pretend I know that much about Toronto tourism, but it seems to me like that is not a good way to get anyone to visit your city.

12. Number 12 on my list is a nice followup on Number 13. After the news broke that Mayor Ford was kicked out of a hockey game, he had a great excuse: he claimed he was never even at the game. He originally told the Toronto Star: “This is unbelievable. I wasn’t even at the game, so someone’s trying to do a real hatchet job on me, let me tell you.” Eventually he had to admit that he was there, and just said that he had been irresponsible and wasn’t perfect.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Dude, we live in a world where everyone has a camera, or a camera phone, or something. It’s pretty hard to deny that you weren’t at a public event. It’s not even a good try.

11. At that same City Council Meeting where Mayor Ford compared his life to the Gulf War, he absolutely plowed into a woman while trying to walk.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Nothing says “let me keep running this city” and “I’m totally not on drugs” like being really, embarrassingly, uncoordinated.

10. In 2007, Mayor Ford said that if a bicyclist gets hit by a car it’s definitely the bicyclist’s fault. He also compared bike lanes to “swimming with the sharks.” My favorite part of this clip, though? Definitely the last sentence: “My heart bleeds for him when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Lack of understanding about the difference between sharks and humans driving cars aside, there is a huge logical fallacy to Mayor Ford’s argument. He says roads are dangerous and people shouldn’t be cycling. Then he goes on to say that therefore, the implementation of bike lanes, which would make this all safer, is a bad idea. Mayor Ford, that is not how logic works, but good try!

9. Mayor Ford’s use of the term “Orientals.” He stated:

“Those Oriental people work like dogs … they sleep beside their machines. The Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over … they’re hard, hard workers.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Are you kidding me?

8. In 2011, a Canadian comedian showed up at his door pretending to be a journalist and asking him satirical questions. It’s also probably important to note that she was dressed like Xena, Warrior Princess. Weird comedy show aside, a rational response to this is not to call the police, as Mayor Ford did. In an expletive-filled 911 call, he claimed he was “attacked.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Because it displays he has no sense of humor. Because it also displays a complete overreaction to a comedic stunt. And, because he apparently said to the dispatcher, “”Don’t you f***** know? I’m Rob f****** Ford, the mayor of this city.” Oof.

7. A former mayoral candidate, Sarah Thomson, ran into Mayor Ford at a political function about 9 months ago.  Ms. Thomson is a pretty woman, and no one seems to appreciate that more than Mayor Ford. He reportedly grabbed her butt and then told her she should have joined him in Florida a week earlier, because his wife wasn’t there. She later posted this picture to her Facebook:

Why it’s cringeworthy: At first I thought I was going to make a comment about not grabbing women’s butts in public, but I think Thomson covered it with her Facebook comment. So let’s all take a minute to appreciate the face he’s making in this picture instead.

6. Speaking of Rob Ford and women….he’s had a veritable plethora of problems with his wife and other female members of his family. On Christmas day in 2011, his mother-in-law had to call the cops because he was drunk, threatened to kidnap the couple’s children, and bring them to Florida.

Why it’s cringeworthy: A) Doesn’t he have better things to do? Like, I don’t know, run a city? and B) She made the call sometime between 4 AM and 5 AM. Who in the world is drunk and trying to go to Florida at 4 in the morning?

5. …To continue number 6, there have been multiple calls from Mayor Ford’s house alleging domestic abuse. On at least one occasion, both he and his wife may have been drunk or under the influence of drugs when the police showed up.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I seriously considered not including this one on the list, I really did. It’s about domestic abuse, and domestic abuse is not something that should ever be joked about it. But I did include it, because as funny and snarky as this list is supposed to be, there is a point. Mayor Ford is an idiot. He is unfit for office, and he should be embarrassed by the things he’s done. ALL of the things he’s done. And not shaming this man for his actions against his family and women…well that’s just unacceptable.

4. He used his mayoral letterhead to try to solicit donations for his high school football charity. In my opinion, that’s a little illegal, and a judge agreed.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Mayor Ford’s defense? He didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to use his position to solicit funds from his own charity. In a bizarre move, an appeals judge actually agreed with that argument, and he was ultimately not removed from office.

3. As a Councillor in 2006, Rob Ford rallied against an AIDS prevention program, stating about the disease, “It is very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you will not get AIDS probably, that’s the bottom line. These are the facts.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: When I first started making this list, I was calm and sitting on my couch. I’m still sitting on my couch, but now I’m not calm and I’m working my way through a very large pile of leftover Halloween candy to soothe my soul. It’s not working, because I keep running across statements like this. These are not the facts, Mayor Ford. They are not. And you should stop talking, forever.

2. That time that Mayor Ford tried to find a drug dealer to buy OxyContin on the street for a constituent. In 2010, a phone call happened where a man claimed his doctor would not prescribe him Oxy. Comments like this were made by Mayor Ford:

“I’ll try buddy, I’ll try,” the councillor replied. “I don’t know this shit, but I’ll f****** try to find it.” A few moments later Mr. Ford asked: “What does OxyContin go for on the street, so I have an idea?”

Why it’s cringeworthy: One hand, decent job trying to help a constituent. On the other, logical, hand, how could saying that ever seem like a good idea?

1. This.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I. Can’t. Stop. Laughing.

—

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 [West Annex News 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 Ford’s Fifteen: Fifteen Minutes of Fame, Fifteen Dumb-Ass Things appeared first on Law Street.

The world we live in today makes it hard for any twenty-something to find a decent-paying, full-time job. Although we may search and search, many of us retreat back to school, taking on more debt while seeking higher education.

Even so, we have all accepted unpaid internships with the hope that there is a sliver of a chance that we may be hired as a full-time employee. Despite working for free, we expect to be treated along the same lines as any other employee, entitled to certain rights such as lunch breaks, vacation days, and freedom from sexual harassment, right? WRONG!

David Yamada reported that a New York Federal District Court held that an unpaid intern could not bring a sexual harassment claim against her employer, Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc., under NYC Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, Liuhuan Wang sustained injuries as a result of quid pro quo sexual harassment and sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment created by her supervisor Zhengzhu Liu.

As a 22-year-old student at Syracuse University, Ms. Lihuan claims that during her four weeks at Phoenix Satellite US, Mr. Liu had almost complete supervisory authority in the New York and D.C. bureaus. Ms. Lihuan’s complaint alleges that Mr. Liu had a history of sexual harassment throughout his employment with Phoenix Satellite and he would prey on female employees just starting their career in America and lure them to his hotel room where he would grope and kiss them, and attempt to have sex with them. He is accused of insinuating that in order to have a successful career, female employees and interns at Phoenix would have to submit to his unwanted sexual desires.

Ms. Lihuan claimed that Mr. Liu had similarly invited her back to his hotel after treating her and several co-workers to lunch when he was in town. After asking her to stay behind to “talk about her job performance,” Mr. Liu guided Ms. Lihuan back to his hotel room, under the guise of an work-related issue, and attempted to grope and kiss her, forcing Ms. Lihuan to push him back and leave the room immediately.

Her grievance is due to the fact that she believes her refusal of Mr. Liu’s sexual advances is the reason she was denied full-time employment. The complaint also mentions that a fellow Syracuse student, Qian Chen, worked for Phoenix and was also sexually propositioned by Mr. Liu. Perhaps Mr. Liu and the people over at Phoenix Satellite need a visit from this guy.

The U.S. District Court judge, Judge Kevin P. Castel, ruled that Ms. Lihuan could not bring a valid claim of sexual harassment under New York City Human Rights Law against her employer because her lack of compensation rendered her unable to meet the employee status required by the statute.

Using federal and NY case law, the district court determine that unpaid interns are not employees as defined under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or NYC Human Rights Law. The district court stated that remuneration or the absence of remuneration is an essential element to determining the existence of “the employer-employee relationship.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) supports the U.S. District Court’s position that sexual harassment laws don’t cover interns unless they receive “significant remuneration,” according to an EEOC spokesperson, Joseph Olivares.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Phoenix denies that Ms. Lihuan ever applied for a position and Mr. Liu is no longer with the company. This wasn’t the first case, and it surely will not be the last. Although the workplace dynamic for unpaid interns is already changing, maybe it’s time to take another look at the rights unpaid interns are entitled to while working. Perhaps something slightly more than a video at orientation.

And no live demonstrations are necessary.

And remember, its not just women who suffer from sexual harassment in the workplace.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Melissa Gira via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tragedy of the Unpaid Intern: No Money – No Rights appeared first on Law Street.