In a controversial ruling, Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty on multiple accounts of sexual assault and one count of choking based on the allegations of three women. In his judgment, Justice William B. Horkins cited “serious deficiencies in the evidence” that left reasonable doubt in the case.

Ghomeshi was the host of the popular radio show “Q,” but was fired from his position at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) last October after the network claimed to have seen evidence of him causing “physical injury” to a woman. Around the time of his dismissal, multiple women came forward to the Toronto Star with various allegations of violence and sexual harassment against Ghomeshi (there would end up being over 20 accusations total). This particular trial involved incidents occurring in 2002-2003 involving three women, two who chose to remain unidentified during the trial; the third was Canadian actress Lucy DeCoutere.

While it may hold true that there was not enough evidence to garner a conviction for Ghomeshi, the real outrage surrounding the acquittal seems to stem from the actual judgment released by Justice Horkins, which tore apart the testimonies of the alleged victims and addressed any inconsistencies in their recollections of the events as being “outright deception.” Horkins also claimed that the evidence provided included “questionable behaviour” by the witnesses.

Judge in Ghomeshi trial called witness’s behaviour “odd.” Yup! When you’ve been sexually assaulted, things can seem “odd” #IBelieveSurvivors

— DeAnne Smith (@DeAnne_Smith) March 24, 2016

The judge’s comments in #Ghomeshi case uphold that rape culture and victim-blaming is alive and well. #IBelieveSurvivors

— Janet Mock (@janetmock) March 24, 2016

Witness 1 shared rxn to #Ghomeshi verdict w/ @Chatelaine: “He called us all liars. This was an insult to women.” pic.twitter.com/levQxBF1TV

— Sarah Boesveld (@sarahboesveld) March 24, 2016

Further, Horkins hit upon the fact that witnesses failed to disclose information that he believed would be “significant” to the trial, such as the fact that DeCoutere engaged in multiple “kissing sessions” with Ghomeshi the night of the assault, and the fact that victims had engaged in “flirtatious” behavior with him. This response by the judge seemed to imply that this behavior by the witnesses were indications of consent on their part.

Ghomeshi himself was never put on the stand; however, after his firing by CBC he responded in a now-deleted Facebook post, indicating that his aggressive sexual behavior was consensual. He wrote:

Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.

After the news of the verdict broke, protests broke out in front of the courtroom in Toronto, and people gathered to rally in support of the accusers. There were also calls by many for legal reform in sexual assault cases within the Canadian legal system. Ghomeshi’s fight is not completely over yet; he will be back on trial in June to face one of the other charges levied against him.

Actress Zoe Kazan also released a series of tweets yesterday, alleging that Ghomeshi had acted inappropriately towards her:

Before we went on air, he told me I was “just his type.” “Funny, sexy, just the right amount of damage,” he said (after talking abt 3 mins).

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

Later he showed up @ party I was at & wdnt leave me alone. His unwanted attention made me feel like I’d “asked for it.” I felt dirty & sad.

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

This behavior is insidious, but so is a culture that condones it, by turning a blind eye, or shaming the victim. We internalize these mores.

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

Ghomeshi may have been set free by the Canadian legal system, but in the court of public opinion, it looks as if his reputation may be tarnished for good.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Jian Ghomeshi’s Acquittal Provokes Debates on Victim-Blaming and Consent appeared first on Law Street.

The pop star who brought us such hits as “Tik Tok” and “Your Love Is My Drug” has been going through an intense legal battle over her contract with her producer and alleged rapist, Dr. Luke. Her lawsuit hit a snag last week when a New York judge denied Kesha an injunction that would have allowed her to record with other studios, instead forcing her to remain in her contract until the details of the lawsuit are settled.

Kesha’s fight against Dr. Luke has been in the public eye since 2013, when fans began the campaign to “Free Kesha” from Dr. Luke’s control. The singer soon revealed that her producer had not only restricted her music and lyrics, but verbally, physically and sexually abused her, culminating in a stay at a rehab facility. She filed the lawsuit in 2014 in an attempt to break her contract and record music elsewhere.

After the injunction was denied, Dr. Luke broke his silence on the matter, claiming he has never assaulted Kesha. Despite his statements, the singer has received an outpouring of support from fans and celebrities, including a $250,000 donation from Taylor Swift.

But regardless of whether or not you believe Dr. Luke or you believe Kesha, the denied injunction means the same thing: Dr. Luke and his record label’s money is more important than the well-being and mental state of the singer whom they claim to represent. Given the gravity of the allegations against Dr. Luke, it should not be the case that Kesha must stay in a career-throttling contract with her alleged abuser until he is proven guilty.

Contracts in the music industry are notoriously bad about allowing musicians any sort of artistic freedom, often signing them on for long periods of time with constricting regulations.  Of the injunction, the judge said, “You’re asking the court to decimate a contract that was heavily negotiated and typical for the industry.”

What makes her case atypical, however, are the rape and abuse allegations. Denying her an out is an attempt to diminish her claims, and the action shows a lack of support for rape victims in general. It says to them that, until their claims are proven, it didn’t happen. This is a result of the victim-blaming society in which we live, where rape victims are questioned and their abusers are allowed to go free.

In Kesha’s case, what more proof is needed? She has gone through rehabilitation and treatment for the trauma she experienced, and is pursuing a lengthy and expensive legal solution to her misery. If an artist simply wanted to break a contract, there are simpler ways to do so.

Morgan McMurray

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

The post Kesha’s Denied Injunction Spits In The Faces Of Rape Victims appeared first on Law Street.

The decisions by grand juries not to indict the police officers who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York–both unarmed black men–have sparked a visceral reaction from many Americans coast to coast. In the case of Garner, the reaction transcended partisan politics, with conservative voices such as Glenn Beck expressing disbelief at how an unarmed man being choked to death on camera was not enough to even start a criminal proceeding against his killer, Officer Daniel Pantaleo.

On the other hand, there are those who reject the idea that the system failed these victims and their families, and that these outcomes are indicative of a larger institutional design that disproportionately victimizes black people. They tend to view these cases as “isolated incidents,” unfortunate yes, but perhaps unavoidable in a society where police are confronted with violent crime on a daily basis. Inevitably, they veer into defaming the victim’s character. “It’s not like Michael Brown was an angel. Did you see the video of him robbing that store just before the shooting?” I have even heard some version of these quotes uttered by people very close to me, whose opinions I hold in high regard. Yet, here they are apologizing for murderers.

It is not difficult to see the striking parallel between this behavior and the victim-blaming that surrounds cases of rape and domestic abuse involving women. “Well she was wearing a short skirt” “Wasn’t she drunk?” “Why did she go back to him?” A system designed to protect men at the expense of women will scrutinize the woman’s actions to see what she did to bring such misfortune upon herself, rather than investigating the criminal actions of the male perpetrator. This, in turn, engenders a deep distrust of the system among women and explains why a majority of sexual assaults go unreported.

Similarly, a system designed to protect white lives at the expense of black lives makes it acceptable to blame the black victim of a senseless murder. Whether 18–year-old Brown or 43-year-old Garner were “angels” before their lives were cut short bears no relevance on whether their killers should be held accountable for their untimely deaths. Those who feel these are appropriate counterarguments to an issue that’s been blown out of proportion by the media are products of this system and these are misplaced attempts at appearing “fair and balanced.” That Officers Wilson and Pantaleo may never face a public trial for their actions means that the system worked as it was designed. Unfortunately, this also means that the distrust of law enforcement in black communities was only compounded. Obama’s call for $263 million for body cameras on police may increase transparency, but trust will elude us until we can seek justice in a system untainted by vestiges of the racial caste system that this country was built on.

Kesav Wable

Kesav Wable is an attorney practicing in New York, as well as an accomplished actor and writer. His short film For Flow, an HBO American Black Film Finalist in 2011, was broadcast on HBO/Cinemax, and he continues to develop scripts for the stage and screen. Contact Kesav at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Victim Blaming Nurtures an Unjust System appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

A couple of weeks I wrote about Rolling Stone’s report of a young woman being brutally raped on the University of Virginia campus. Last week Rolling Stone retracted the story, even apologizing to its readers. After the original report hit the news cycle people hung on to every word–even the administrators at UVA took action by banning all fraternities–but now it seems that the story may not have been true.

In my first article I was conflicted about the story of Jackie–the victim–and wondered why she would value her reputation at the school by keeping quiet for so long over her own well-being and justice. I get that being raped by five to seven guys is a traumatic event, one that no one would ever want to relive, but why would you allow your “friends” to talk you into keeping something like that quiet, as the report indicated? Why allow seven rapists to troll the campus for another possible victim?

I believe in the theory that there are three sides to every story, and in this case those sides belong to the victim, the unnamed rapists, and the truth somewhere between the two. One person’s perspective on an event can be totally different from someone else’s, so combining both stories usually brings out a more accurate truth, in my opinion. What Rolling Stone  did was allow Jackie to tell her side of a story without sufficient due diligence on the part of the publication by contacting the men she accused and fact checking the story. Granted, I don’t know how much fact checking you can do when a young woman states she was raped two years ago. Yes, you can check to see if such a party took place at the frat house, but there isn’t much more access someone can get without starting to raise flags. Rolling Stone‘s journalism in this case was abysmal.

My biggest question is would UVA administrators have taken the time to do a thorough investigation if this were privately handled? I would like to think so, but the cynic in me knows that sometimes administrators put the reputation of a school above the well-being of its students.

I’m ashamed of Rolling Stone, not just because of this article but because of several missteps over the last couple of years. The cover where it got the facts wrong on who signed the Constitution–a staple of being an American. The RIDICULOUS decision to put a terrorist on the cover of its magazine where he looked more like a rockstar than an enemy of the state! Fact checking and respecting Americans is clearly not on the agenda over at Rolling Stone. Maybe you guys should stick with what you know–entertainment. But really, you shouldn’t even do that because those reviews are usually wrong, too.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote about how Rolling Stone’s retraction affects rape victims in America. I agree with her, the original Rolling Stone article and later retraction are going to make real victims of rape shy away even more from reporting their experiences. UVA administrators and investigators disproved certain facts that Jackie reported to Rolling Stone. Why couldn’t this publication have taken a little more time and done the right thing? Why did it not take a step back and try to get a full story? Look at the big picture? Yes, it was probably trying to do a good thing in telling this story. So many women feel like they were not alone and were encouraged to tell their story because somehow Jackie found the strength to do it. But now that “strength and courage” have been squashed by reality.

It’s Go Ask Alice all over again. The diary of a young girl that was in fact fictional but presented as truth. There is a certain level of betrayal from the publishers of Go Ask Alice and the people over at Rolling Stone. You want to help rape victims? Try doing your job and not ruining what victims have worked so hard for. That 5.9 percent of false accusations that Anneliese mentions are the ones that are heard the loudest and hung on to the longest. Those who cry wolf are the ones doing the most damage to real victims and Rolling Stone may have just let someone cry wolf on the main stage with a loud speaker.

I’ve shamed Rolling Stone. I’ve shamed UVA. I’ve even shamed Jackie. But now it’s time to reiterate that even though her story as published in Rolling Stone may not be true, anyone who is a victim of rape–or any crime–should find the strength in themselves to speak up. Be what Jackie was supposed to be–a role model who is taking charge of what happened to her and standing up for herself and victims alike.

Don’t let Rolling Stone take away your power.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone, Bad Journalism, and the Future of Rape Victims appeared first on Law Street.

Early this afternoon, Rolling Stone released a post entitled “A Note to Our Readers.” It was a follow-up to a story published last month that took an extensive look at rape culture on the campus of the University of Virginia. Although the story was far-reaching, it focused particularly on a young woman named Jackie who allegedly was gang-raped at a fraternity party. I use the word allegedly because even though I believed Jackie’s story wholeheartedly, Rolling Stone has now retracted the article.

“A Note to Our Readers” was spectacularly vague, and in my opinion, put more blame on Jackie than a nationally known and respected news publication, but that’s almost beside the point. You can read the full retraction here, but here’s the part that stuck out to me. For context, it’s important to understand that Rolling Stone never interviewed or spoke with the men Jackie accused, out of an attempt to respect the fact that she was fearful of them. This is the what Rolling Stone included in its note today:

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

There were discrepancies to Jackie’s account–for example, the fact that she may have gotten the date of the party wrong, and so on. I don’t have the information that Rolling Stone does, and they were clearly being purposefully vague–but “discrepancies” does not render the entire story null and void.

Discrepancies are part of reporting, part of crime, and part of life. Jackie was telling this story after the fact and was relaying a traumatized experience. If she didn’t have discrepancies, I’d be more surprised.

And what people want is tidy little narratives from victims. They want perfect and total recall from shocking situations.

— roxane gay (@rgay) December 5, 2014

Our legal system doesn’t demand that every little question be answered and correct–I’m going to make an entirely unfair comparison here, but a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri proved just a few weeks ago that discrepancies in stories apparently mean jack squat. So why would the existence of discrepancies make Rolling Stone pull their story?

There are a couple of explanations. One is that they’re protecting their asses. They don’t want to get sued. They are businesspeople and they are choosing to protect their business, regardless if it means invalidating a quite possibly real and shocking story.

Another explanation is that Jackie lied, and Rolling Stone didn’t catch it. I don’t want to believe this is true. False accusations are rare–exceedingly rare–but they do exist. A study out of Northeastern University estimates them at about 5.9 percent. That’s of course only out of rapes that are reported–there are far more that aren’t, which means that the people who report false rape vs. people who are actually sexually assaulted are really rare. I highly doubt that this was fabricated, but it’s not impossible. There could be half truths too–Jackie could be telling someone else’s story who was too afraid to come out with it. Either way, I can’t say with certainty but I don’t think this was a lie. And honestly if it was, that’s on Rolling Stone too for screwing up their fact checking.

Because at the end of the day, it should be Rolling Stone we’re mad at. This whole thing is going to encourage rape victims to hide, not come forward and tell their story, unless they can remember every damn detail and prove it. It’s going to shift the conversation from the legitimate problem we have with sexual assault in this country to conversations about journalism. This incident is going to be cited by rape apologists and those who claim false rape accusations until those idiots are blue in the face. It’s going to set us back, there’s no way it’s not going to.

Rolling Stone: you didn’t do your job, and now rape victims are going to pay the price.

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 Rolling Stone Just Set Back Rape Victims’ Progress in America appeared first on Law Street.

For years now schools have had to continually ask themselves, “How do we deal with bullies?” It seems like no matter what, when you put a bunch of young people together in a building to spend day after day with just a few teachers to supervise, you end up with some kids who pick on others. So schools have to figure out how to confront this issue, and unfortunately ome of them do a very very bad job at it.

Candler Elementary in Buncombe County, NC made a pitiful attempt to stop the bullying of a young boy who carried a “My Little Pony” backpack. Instead of punishing the bullies who targeted the boy or even telling them to stop, they told the boy to stop bringing the backpack to school.

Caprock Academy in Grand Junction, Colo. barred a 9-year-old girl from attending school for not following the school’s dress code. The dress code was created to ensure that students look similar and don’t create any distractions. So how had the girl violated the code? She shaved her head in solidarity with her friend who has cancer.

These instances send messages to students that I find incredibly problematic.

3. The message it sends to bullies. 

Removing kids from school because they’re in any way nonconformist tells kids that it’s not OK to be yourself — and that’s a dangerous message to send to bullies because it validates their behavior. It tells the bullies that there is something wrong with these students and they deserve to be treated differently as a result.

This is almost exactly what happened in Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota a few years ago. In just two years, 2009-2011, nine kids in the district committed suicide. Many were either gay, or thought to be gay by their classmates. Anoka-Hennepin actually banned all discussion of homosexuality from its schools during this period. Teachers had to avoid talking to their students about homosexuality or identity for fear of losing their jobs. Students weren’t allowed to form a Gay Straight Alliance. They couldn’t talk to staff about fears, concerns, or crises they were having. As Jefferson Fietek, a teacher at Anoka Middle School, pointed out, “LGBTQ students don’t feel safe at school. They’re made to feel ashamed of who they are. They’re bullied. And there’s no one to stand up for them, because teachers are afraid of being fired.”

The case of the young man with the My Little Pony backpack isn’t that far from what Anoka-Hennepin did. By removing all mention of homosexuality from that school, administrators were saying that it was indeed wrong, and that young people struggling with their sexuality didn’t deserve resources, understanding, or protection. They said that the bullies are right because those kids are, in fact, harmfully different. By removing that kid’s backpack from school, administrators at Candler Elementary are doing the same thing. They are saying that he is wrong and deserves to be taunted.

Now, it’s important to note that both schools have since changed their policies. Anoka-Hennepin School District, after the tragic rash of suicides, started providing resources to LGBTQ students. And Candler Elementary has since allowed the backpack back in school. But the fact that this was the automatic reaction on the part of the school district is unquestionably concerning.

2. The message it sends to the victims. 

Such actions on the part of the school sends the opposite message to the victims. It tells them that their abuse is justified. It propagates a bullying culture. It essentially tells students that they need to conform to their bully’s expectations in order to avoid being bullied. But adolescence is when people explore their likes and dislikes, their personalities, and their passions. And to teach children to hide those things because it could expose them to the bullies is ridiculous. Instead, bullies should be taught not to bully. They should be taught that treating another human being that way is abhorrent and utterly unacceptable.

Victim blaming is a bad way to deal with bullying, but it often seems like an immediate reaction on the part of the school. For example, look at this story of a girl in Missouri who was bullied because of her body. According to a report on the issue, “Tammie Jackson contacted her daughter’s middle school to complain about her daughter Gabrielle Jackson being bullied, as reported by Fox News. Allegedly, a school official at Central Middle School in Moline Acres, Mo., said Gabrielle would be bullied unless she transferred schools and had breast reduction surgery.”

That’s utterly ridiculous. Telling a young girl, who is probably already insecure about her body, that she needs to get breast reduction surgery in order to avoid being bullied is disgusting. Instead, we need to teach the bullies that you shouldn’t be a gigantic, disgusting, jerk.

1. The message it sends to the rest of the students. 

It teaches other students to be bystanders. Years after taking an Intro to Psych course, the Kitty Genovese story has always stuck with me. For those of you who don’t know this story, it’s essentially one of the most well known examples of the bystander effect. In 1968, Kitty Genovese was stabbed outside her home in Queens, New York. She screamed for help the entire time, but none of her neighbors, despite being able to hear her, did anything. They all thought that it wasn’t their responsibility and that someone else would obviously step in to help. But no one did, and Genovese died that night.

When schools blame victims for being bullied, they are teaching their students to just stand there for fear of being bullied themselves. They are teaching students that nonconformity is a bad thing, and that there’s no need to defend those being bullied. And in some ways, that’s the most dangerous lesson of all, because no matter where you go in life there will be bullies. Whether it’s a pushy coworker, or an obnoxious neighbor, or an angry driver on the road, there will be bullies in life. And if we teach our young people to stand up for others, that’s the first step to counteracting those bullies. Teaching students to just stand by and watch will just make the problem worse.

—

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 [TwentyFour Students 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 Schools Need to Change How They Deal with Bullying. Now. appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, what is going on with Woody Allen these days?

In case you’ve missed all the drama amid the #SochiFailympics, here’s a quick recap of what’s been happening. Woody Allen was given a lifetime achievement award at The Golden Globes last month, to which his ex, Mia Farrow, and her son, Ronan, responded with this:

Time to grab some icecream & switch over to #GIRLS

— mia farrow (@MiaFarrow) January 13, 2014

Missed the Woody Allen tribute – did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?

— Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) January 13, 2014

Some passive aggressive Twitter rage, I see! Understandable, considering Woody Allen allegedly molested Dylan Farrow, daughter and sister of the two subtweeting Farrows. Of course, the world exploded. Along with the responses of a handful of celebrities and everyone on Twitter, Dylan spoke out for herself.

Detailing the trauma of childhood sexual assault at the hands of a celebrity in an open letter published in the New York Times, Dylan wrote, “[I] imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter…Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse.”

That’s some powerful, powerful shit. Not that it shut down any of the men’s rights, Woody Allen apologists for half a second.

First there was this op-ed, by Woody Allen’s BFF. Its nauseating smugness actually makes me want to barf. Then, there was Woody Allen’s own response, in which he minimizes and distorts his own douchebaggery to smear his ex Mia as a loony-tune woman scorned. On the same day, Vanity Fair published a list of fully fact-checked, indisputable truths about the highly contested case, and then, one day later, Dylan issued her own re-response.

Phew. It’s been a rough few weeks for the Farrows and the Allens and all of us in between. You think your own family feuds are intense? At least they don’t play out in the news, am I right?

THANK GOODNESS.

But despite the fact that I’m trying to keep this light, this Woody Allen/Dylan Farrow fiasco is no joke. This is some serious, serious shit. Especially because what really happened in that attic is so hotly contested.

Folks, a lot has been written about this case, and here’s what most of it comes down to — none of us were there. As third-party bystanders, all of our information is secondhand. So, we each have to choose what to believe, for ourselves.

You can choose to believe Woody and his story about a vengeful, manipulative ex-girlfriend who’s willing to psychologically abuse her children in order to get back at him.

Or, you can believe Dylan and her story about a creepy father who assaulted her and then proceeded to launch a smear campaign against his victim and her family.

I know which story I find more plausible.

But, these conflicting stories aside, we’re still left with some simple, disturbing facts. Even if nothing at all had happened between Dylan and Woody — even if there were no allegations — he still wound up in a romantic relationship with his girlfriend’s daughter. Woody was 56 and dating Mia Farrow when he got involved with Soon-Yi, the 19-year-old adopted sister of his children Ronan and Dylan.

That’s fucking creeptastic.

Despite the widespread reports that Woody and Soon-Yi enjoy a healthy, egalitarian marriage, Allen’s willingness to get involved with his girlfriend’s teenaged, adopted daughter speaks volumes about his character.

He’s a man who either has no sense of boundaries within a relationship, or doesn’t seriously concern himself with them. He’s a man with poor judgment and little impulse control. He’s a man who cares little for anything but his own selfish pursuit of happiness. He isn’t bothered by the disturbing, unequal power dynamic that’s present in a relationship between a 56-year-old cultural kingpin and a 19-year-old adoptee. And he doesn’t feel a mental and emotional gulf between himself and someone more than 30 years his junior — a gulf that should absolutely be present.

And he’s celebrated. Woody Allen is one of the most beloved culture creators of our generation — this man, who’s undeniably fucked up in ways that seriously harmed those closest to him. Meanwhile, Dylan — the victim here — has to live in the shadows, emotionally scarred, or risk being attacked, shamed, and smeared.

So, what does our cultural obsession with Woody Allen say about us? I’ll tell you.

It says that we don’t mind a creepy, emotionally stunted, hurtful, abusive man, so long as he’s rich and white and amusing. We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and immortalize him with laughs and admiration.

But the people he destroys along the way? They can pretty much go fuck themselves.

I’m not a fan of that. Are you?

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [ABC Films (eBay, Lester Glassner Collection) via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post Woody Allen: Dating Your Girlfriend’s Daughter is Kind of a Big Deal appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! How many appendages did you lose to frostbite on your way to work this morning? None? Good for you. I’m pretty sure the bottoms of my feet almost turned to actual ice yesterday, when I was evacuated from my burning office building.

Caption: Yes, I work here. And no, none of us crowded around the fire for warmth.

But! The polar vortex isn’t the only crazy thing happening this morning, unfortunately. More absurdity is happening out in Steubenville, Ohio, where convicted rapist Ma’lik Richmond was recently released from a juvenile detention facility.

In case you’ve already forgotten, Ma’lik was at the center of one of the most talked about rape cases of 2013. 16-year-old Ma’lik was a star player on Steubenville’s high school football team, Big Red, along with 17-year-old Trent Mays. The two boys were destined for big things — college ball, maybe the NFL — and they were all but worshiped in a town where football is described as a religion.

Then, one night, the two boys went to a party, where they met up with an extremely drunk young woman. A fellow high school student, this girl had allegedly been flirting with Mays via text message. Apparently, the two boys took her maybe-flirtatious text messages to mean that she was DTF, and they transported her from party to party with an all-male group of friends. Ridiculously drunk, the girl spent a fair amount of the night vomiting and lying around in an essentially comatose state. Unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember most of the night’s events.

But cell phone cameras and social media accounts have pretty long memories. Almost instantly, photos, videos, text messages, and tweets documented the night she couldn’t remember. There were photos of Mays and Richmond holding her limp body by the arms and legs, while her head hung slack. There were photos of her lying naked, face down on the floor, in a home she’d never visited before. (Incidentally, that’s how she woke up the next morning.) There were videos of her being vaginally penetrated with Richmond and Mays’ hands.  And all of this happened while she was way, way too drunk to consent.

Ultimately, Mays and Richmond were convicted of rape and sentenced to serve time in a juvenile detention facility, where they would be “rehabilitated.” Feminists around the world rejoiced, just a tiny bit, that these young men were actually being held accountable. Because, as we know by the gazillion other rape cases that go nowhere — it’s depressingly common for accused rapists to suffer absolutely no consequences for their actions.

So, yay for that not happening! Right?

Sort of. Obviously, children being sent to prison is never something to cheer about. Furthermore, the media’s obvious sympathy for the rapists, and lack of empathy for the victim, was infuriating. Take this clip as an example — CNN spent six minutes lamenting the fact that promising, rapist lives were ruined, and barely mentioned how the victim’s life was affected.

So, the Steubenville rape case has been pretty maddening for everyone who doesn’t hate women. And the horror continues! When Ma’lik was released from juvenile detention this weekend — which isn’t necessarily surprising or irritating, honestly — he/his attorney/his attorney’s PR agency released a statement.

Oh, the agony of reading this statement.

You can read the full text here, but here’s the most important snippet:

“The past sixteen months have been extremely challenging for Ma’Lik and his extended family. At sixteen years old, Ma’Lik and his family endured hardness beyond imagination for any adult yet alone child. He has persevered the hardness and made the most of yet another unfortunate set of circumstances in his life.”

It goes on to ramble about how Ma’lik would like privacy from the media so he can be a normal teenager, hang out with his family, and move on with his life. It also makes ZERO MENTION of the victim. Not one time.

UGGGHHHHH

This is the worst non-apology ever.

Why? Let’s start with simple mechanics. Whoever wrote this train wreck of a press release can’t write to save their goddamn lives. “Hardness?” He persevered against “hardness?” I can’t. I cannot. “Hardness” is not a word that is acceptable to use, basically ever. Just for future reference. Also, SO MANY COMMAS ARE MISSING OMGGGG.

But let’s not get too carried away — obviously the content is what’s most important here. The fact that Ma’lik and everyone around him is so focused on whining about how hard his life has been as a result of this rape is seriously deranged. How difficult do you think the victim’s life has been?  What kind of “hardness” (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist) has she had to persevere against? A whole fuck of a lot, I’m betting.

It’s clear that Ma’lik — or at least the people who are speaking for him — has gone through his “rehabilitation” process without actually taking responsibility for his actions. He’s emerged without apologizing for the immeasurable harm he inflicted on his victim. He’s still solely focused on how this whole ordeal affects him.

Folks, I don’t know about you, but I’m totally sick of this rape culture that pours sympathy on rapists while blaming, shaming, and ignoring victims.

That’s some seriously anti-feminist, anti-woman, pro-violence douche-y-ness.

So let’s put a stop to that, shall we? Thanks a ton.

—

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  [marsmettnn tallahaassee 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 Steubenville Rapist is Released and Issues Grammatically Incorrect Non-Apology appeared first on Law Street.

Merry Christmas Eve, folks!

Today, I’ve got ridiculousness upon ridiculousness. And it’s infuriating.

Salon reported today, via Raw Story and NBC News, on Rachel Bradshaw-Bean, a young woman from Texas who was raped in the band room at Henderson High School back in 2010, when she was just 17 years old. This is the first time Rachel has spoken out to the media about her experience – and she’s telling an awful story.

In an interview with NBC, Rachel recounted how in 2010, when she initially reported the rape, her school told her to “work it out.”

Are you kidding? Go kiss and make up with your rapist, sweetheart, no big deal.

I can’t.

News of the assault traveled to a school vice principal the following day, and Rachel was sent to a health clinic for examination. The clinic confirmed that her injuries were consistent with her report.

Despite the fact that medical professionals confirmed Rachel had experienced a rape, the Texas police informed her and her parents that no charges would be filed.

NO CHARGES WOULD BE FILED.

As in, you got raped, darling, but no one really cares. Get over it.

WTF?! This is the actual worst.

Except it’s not! Because things got worse for Rachel. Her high school opted not to carry out its own, independent investigation — which is required by law under Title IX. Instead, they decided to ship Rachel and her attacker off to a disciplinary school for 45 days with charges of “public lewdness.”

That’s right. Public fucking lewdness. How dare you get raped — how indecent of you!

So, Rachel’s mom tried to transfer her daughter to a different school. You know, where maybe she wouldn’t get treated like a criminal as punishment for being the victim of a sexual assault. And guess what? That didn’t pan out. Since Rachel was technically suspended from her original school, no other school would take her in. Ridiculous.

Seriously so bad.

So, Rachel and her family went to the ACLU, where they were told that, sadly, their situation was far from unusual. According to the ACLU, school officials often don’t understand the laws, so they don’t put much stock in following them.

The Department of Education does, though. A year after Rachel’s ordeal, it ruled that Henderson High School had violated Title IX by failing to investigate the attack, and by retaliating against the victim with her exile to a disciplinary school. As a result, the school was given a 13-point plan for Title IX compliance, mandatory staff training around rape and sexual assault, and was ordered to pay for Rachel’s counseling.

I’m glad that at least there were some consequences for this shit hole of a case.

There are so many issues here. Let’s start with the fundamental lack of empathy or concern for Rachel. WTF. This is misogyny at its finest. Misogyny, if you’re rusty on your Women’s Studies vocab, is defined as having a hatred for women. And that’s all I can really explain this as. Hatred of women. Because how else do you understand such heartless behavior? Here’s a person who was violently attacked. She’s in physical pain, she’s mentally and emotionally traumatized — this is a terrible thing that’s happened. People should respond with some empathy, am I right? There should be a collective desire to help the victim heal, and to teach the perpetrator never to cause this type of harm again.

That’s what should have happened. But it didn’t. Instead, Rachel was treated with carelessness at best and outright contempt at worst. Why would you treat a victim that way? It’s disgusting.

Seriously gross.

Moving right along, let’s tackle this issue of telling women to get over it. I’m so, so, so very sick of this sentiment. And I hear it way too often.

When someone is hurting, and they’re told to get over it, do you know what they’re hearing? They’re hearing that they don’t matter. That their feelings, and experiences, and their pain doesn’t matter. They’re being dismissed, denied, and ignored. And when that happens, a fundamental lack of trust forms in the space where healing should have started. Because, how do you feel safe in a world where you fundamentally don’t matter?

You don’t.

That’s where we’re at right now, people. And we’ve been here for a long time. Every time a woman like Rachel gets brushed aside, women everywhere are being reminded that we don’t matter. Not really. Not in this moment, not in this society.

So, for Christmas, let’s change that, shall we? Let’s use all those warm, fuzzy feelings of love and goodwill, and let’s start transferring them to all the people who need it most. Some of those people will be like Rachel. And some of them will be in totally different, but equally awful, circumstances.

Either way, let’s spread the love this year. We could all use a little extra.

—

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 [The Untrained Eye 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 All I Want For Christmas: Stop Telling Rape Victims to Get Over it appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! Are you staying warm? Because it’s snowing here in New York.  And I’m totally wishing I never got out of bed.

But not just because of the weather or the sidewalk slush that always seems to work its way into my boots. Nope. Today, Rush Limbaugh is kind of making me want to burrow a hole in my blankets. This man is the bane of every feminist’s existence.

He’s also a source of never ending material and entertainment, though. So there’s that.

Anyway! Your (least) favorite conservative talk show host got pretty frisky yesterday. On his barf-tastic radio show, he discussed a recent study by the University of Nebraska that found that the male gaze objectifies women. And you know what he did? He responded by totally objectifying women.

First of all, this study must have been conducted by Captain Obvious. Of course the male gaze objectifies women! This is about as newsworthy as the fact that the sky is blue.  No one is gasping with shock. So next time you set aside some money to conduct a study, University of Nebraska, maybe focus on producing some new knowledge? I feel like that would be more useful.

Anyway! Mr. Limbaugh, ever the conservative, God-fearing gentleman, responded to this study’s findings by encouraging men to get a little more creative with their objectification. He actually told his listeners to walk up to women and say, “Would you please ask your breasts to stop staring at my eyes?”

UGH. How charming.

First of all, Rush’s reaction was just plain weird. Like honestly. I’d expect the king of chauvinism to refute the Nebraska study as ridiculous. To claim that men aren’t objectifying women — women are just being too damned sensitive! Blast this sinful nation and its obsession with political correctness.

But he didn’t deny anything. He wasn’t outraged by the study’s conclusion that men are, in fact, kind of douche-y when it comes to how they relate to women. Nope. Instead, he jumped on the douchebag train enthusiastically. In short, he didn’t deny being a jerk. He just encouraged men to be bigger jerks.

Second of all, let’s talk about the intensely bizarre personification of breasts.

Rush Limbaugh wants women’s breasts to stop staring at him? Like they have eyes and a mind of their own? This is literally one of the weirdest things I’ve ever heard. Hate to break it to you, Rush, but breasts are just that. Breasts. They’re useless lumps of fat attached haphazardly to a person’s chest. And women aren’t the only ones who have them.

They aren’t staring at you any more than a woman’s arm is staring at you. Or her actual face, for that matter. Don’t flatter yourself. Degradation and disrespect isn’t exactly the kind of thing that gets our pupils dilated and our hearts racing.

Regardless of whether or not you’re delusional enough to think that women’s breasts are turning their proverbial heads every time you walk by, why are you so down with objectification in the first place, Mr. Limbaugh? Because here’s what objectification means.

It means that you don’t think women are people. You think we’re less than people, we’re sub-human, we’re objects. Like, we’re on par with your desk and your chair. We’re here to be used and abused and thrown away when you’re finished with us.

That’s what objectification means.

It doesn’t even have to be that intense. It can be more subtle, yet just as insulting. Just as disturbing. Maybe you don’t think we’re on par with chairs. (I think you probably do.) Maybe you aren’t interested in using, abusing, and tossing us aside. (I think you probably are.) But when you’re in a woman’s presence, and all you can think about is her lady bits, you’re assuming she’s an object. Maybe not a desk, maybe not a chair. More like a living, breathing, blow-up doll.

You’re looking at a woman, and you’re seeing nothing but a sex toy. A place to put your dick. And you know what, Rush? That’s a really big problem.

Rush Limbaugh is one of the most listened-to talk radio hosts in the country. He’s one of the most highly paid media professionals in the industry. He holds real influence. And it’s influencers like him that prompt Michigan legislators to propose rape insurance. Abortion restrictions. Lower wages. Victim blaming. Slut shaming. Rape culture.

Men like Rush Limbaugh shape our culture, our society, and our laws. It’s no wonder that everything is such a mess. So let’s Flush Rush, shall we? #StopRush #MyBoobsAreNotStaringAtYou

—

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 [Ginny 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 Rush Limbaugh Wants Your Boobs to Stop Staring at Him appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, loves! Happy turkey week!

Thanksgiving is my all-time favorite holiday. I am a Thanksgiving super-fan. So, unsurprisingly, I’m having a super fabulous week because I’m just so EXCITED!

But the impending day of butter-soaked tryptophan isn’t the only reason I’m pumped this morning. I’m also pumped because Texas did something right.

Shocking, right? Rick Perry runs the Lone Star state. That’s never promising, especially not for women.  But! Apparently we’ve got some super-awesome Texans who are not fans of abusing and oppressing vagina-laden people.

YAY.

Here’s what happened: Over the weekend, a 19 year old woman accused 40-year-old police officer Jackie Len Neal of handcuffing and raping her while he was on duty.

According to her account of the events, Officer Neal pulled her over on the grounds that the car she was driving had been reported stolen. She produced a sales slip, proving ownership of the car, but Officer Neal wasn’t satisfied. He asked her to get out of the car so that he could pat her down.

The woman protested, asking for a female officer to perform the pat down, but Officer Neal ignored her. Instead, he groped her, put her in handcuffs, and then took her to the backseat of his patrol car and raped her. Then, he told her to keep the whole encounter a secret. Conveniently, the police car’s security cameras were not working properly.

What happened to this 19-year-old woman is terrible. This is the kind of shit I worry about when I think about getting pulled over. (Luckily, I’ve never been pulled over before—all-star driver over here.)

So, obviously, the actual rape is not why I’m pumped about Texas this morning. I’m excited because the San Antonio Police Department is handling it really well.

Cue gasps all around.

When the victim reported this crime, do you know what the SAPD did?

They ARRESTED Officer Neal.

There was no victim blaming or slut shaming. There was no ridiculing. There was no sweeping this incident under the rug.

Nope. Instead, Police Chief William McManus went on record to praise the victim for coming forward, to urge other victims to do the same, and to denounce Officer Neal’s awful behavior.

“There is no such thing as consensual sex on duty,” said McManus. “I feel silly even saying that we won’t tolerate it. Of course we won’t tolerate it. There is no gray area. This is a criminal offense.”

TEXAS FOR THE WIN!

Loves, here’s why this whole case is so exciting. Texas is a blood-red state, run by a far Right, uber-religious, Tea Party governor, who’s famous for enacting draconian legislation that screws everyone who’s not rich, white, straight, and male.

But actually.

This is the same state that, in 2011, tried to rewrite K-12 history textbooks to refer to slavery as the “Atlantic triangular trade,” demonize Social Security, valorize witch hunter Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and omit Pres. Thomas Jefferson and Pres. Obama from the record entirely.

Just a few days ago, the Guardian reported that the Texas Board of Education was trying to amend biology books to teach creationism and deny climate change. They’ve also, apparently, started referring to slaves as “unpaid interns” who were compensated not with money, but with “valuable career experience…and ample networking opportunities.”

Not to mention, just last week, Texas got the go ahead to start enforcing a law that would seriously restrict women’s access to safe abortions in the state. Its passage has caused abortion clinics to close left and right, and will deny 20,000 women access to abortion altogether, with many more facing delays and increased risks.

All things considered, Texas has a bad reputation when it comes to women. Really, really bad. That’s certainly not to say that all Texans are woman haters, or that Texas itself is an awful place to be.

But it is to say that, when it comes to the Texans who make the rules, they overwhelmingly support legislation that’s radically Right-wing and anti-feminist.

So this week, when a 19 year old woman accused a police officer of raping her, I had low expectations.

I assumed the police department would laugh in her face. They’d protect their own. They’d sweep the whole thing under the rug, telling her she must have wanted it, she must have enjoyed it, she doesn’t have any proof anyway, she shouldn’t have been driving alone.

Similar things have happened in states with less conservative reputations. Hell, it’s happened in the bluest of blue states. It happens fucking everywhere. This is why rape is so under reported.

But then, I got a pleasant surprise. The SAPD didn’t do any of those things.

Instead, they held the rapist responsible, while treating the victim (publicly, at least) with compassion and respect.

This is how rape cases should be handled.

So, you see, this isn’t just an awesome week for turkey. It’s also an awesome week for women, for rape victims, and (weirdly), for Texas.

Congratulatory back slaps all around! Let’s keep this up, law enforcement, mmkay?

—

Featured image courtesy of [Jack 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 Texas Handles Rape Case Without Slut Shaming, Cue Applause appeared first on Law Street.