The Bureau of Prisons released a memo last week declaring that feminine hygiene products would be provided to inmates for free. While this will only affect female inmates who are currently incarcerated in federal prisons, it’s a notable step forward for inmates who struggle to access basic hygienic products.

While some products were previously provided to women for free, many had to be purchased through the commissary, with the inmates’ own money. For the many prisoners who are from low income families, or those who are not able to work while behind bars, it can be incredibly difficult to obtain the money needed to purchase such items. And accessing those items through a commissary is actually difficult to begin with–for many prisons there is a long wait when it comes to placing orders. According to some reports, some women are forced to provide sexual favors to guards in order to obtain the feminine hygiene products that they need.

This announcement from the Bureau of Prisons comes right after a bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) that would require feminine hygiene products to be provided for free. The bill, the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, would also require other humane reforms in how female inmates are treated. Some of those reforms include easier access to visitations, a ban on shackling pregnant women, and access to OBGYNs.

In an interview with Bustle, Booker said:

Most folks don’t understand that so many women are being incarcerated are coming from environments that are not stable, that they are again survivors of violence, they might come in with an addiction. So now you’re struggling to recover from an addiction, you’re going through withdrawal, you have no resources, you have no support system and you’re struggling and all of that, and now you can’t even buy soap, toothpaste, sanitary products.

But while the new move by the Bureau of Prisons is a step in the right direction, the other issues included in the bill need to be addressed as well.

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 Bureau of Prisons to Provide Free Feminine Hygiene Products appeared first on Law Street.

More women than men are paying increased attention to politics after Donald Trump’s election, according to new data about political attentiveness.

Nine months after an election largely defined by its historic gender gap, survey data from the Pew Research Center shows that 58 percent of women say they are “paying increased attention to politics since Trump’s election,” compared with only 46 percent of men.

Overall, 52 percent of the population said they are paying more attention, while 33 percent say they are paying about the same amount of attention, and 13 percent admitted to being less attentive.

“There are similarly wide gender gaps in heightened interest to politics among members of both parties,” according to the Pew. “Sixty-three percent of Democratic women say they are more attentive to politics, compared with 51 percent of Democratic men. Among Republicans, 54 percent of women and 43 percent of men say the same.”

Pew conducted the survey between June 27 and July 9, speaking with 2,505 adults in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

The Gender Gap

Women paying more attention to politics has translated into on-the-ground political activism, according to the data. Seventeen percent of women say they have attended a political rally, event, or protest; 12 percent of men say the same.

It’s likely that a large number of these women were among the estimated 5 million who came out for women’s marches that swept the nation after Inauguration Day.

Education level also appeared to make a difference–the subgroup of the population most likely to have attended a protest is women with post-graduate degrees, with 43 percent having participated.

Out of the total 15 percent of the population who have attended such events, the vast majority (67 percent) did so “in opposition to Trump or his policies,” compared  to the mere 11 percent of those who said they’ve attended a political event in support of the president.

Trump Talk Ending Friendships

The majority of Americans (59 percent) find talking politics with someone who has differing opinions than them on the president to be a “stressful and frustrating” experience. Only 35 percent of the population says it is “interesting and informative” to engage in such conversations.

Women tend to be more frustrated with these conversations–64 percent say they are stressful, compared to 54 percent of men sharing that view.

Going beyond just conversations, about one-in-five survey respondents said that knowing a friend voted for Trump would put a strain on their friendship. However, only 7 percent said that knowing a friend had voted for Hillary Clinton would negatively affect their friendship.

The numbers are even more stark when looking at a breakdown by political affiliation and ideology. Thirty-five percent of Democrats said a friend’s Trump vote would put a strain on the friendship, while only 13 percent of Republicans said the same about a friend #withher. For the Democrats who consider themselves to be liberal, rather than moderate or conservative, 47 percent said their friendships would be strained by a vote for Trump.

A Country Not So Divided

Looking past politics, most Democrats (59 percent) and Republicans (56 percent) said that members of the opposing party probably share their other values and goals.

The ideological group most likely to feel this way is moderate and liberal Republicans, 73 percent of whom said Democrats likely shared their non-political goals and values. These survey questions were only asked of partisan-identifying respondents, not those who said they leaned toward one party.

Click here for the full survey report and methodology explanation from Pew Research Center.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Are Paying More Attention to Politics in Post-Trump World appeared first on Law Street.

Okinoshima, a 200-acre island off the Japanese mainland, was announced as one of the newest additions to the UNESCO World Heritage sites list on Sunday. But globe-trotters wanting to visit Okinoshima may need to reconsider: the island bans women.

The reason behind the island’s ban is unknown, but it is commonly thought to stem from an ancient belief that menstruation makes women impure.

Men who wish to go to the sacred island also have to follow strict guidelines, including ridding themselves of their impurities by bathing naked in the ocean before coming ashore. Men are allowed only one visit per year. They must also never speak of the island, nor remove so much as a flower or blade of grass from the environment, according to Japanese newspaper The Asahi Shimbun.

The female-free land mass is manned year round by a Shinto priest who prays to the island’s gods and watches over the 17th century shrines.

The mystical island is also home to a vast collection of culturally significant and virtually intact archeological artifacts that “provide evidence of intense exchanges between the Japanese archipelago, the Korean Peninsula and the Asian continent,” according to UNESCO.

The island’s treasures and new World Heritage status would have likely attracted a number of tourists, were it not for its policy on travelers. But local officials have stated they will not loosen any rules in light of UNESCO’s decision.

UNESCO Faces Criticism

While the Japanese government welcomed the announcement of its 17th heritage site, many took to social media to express their discontent that a site banning women was given a UN commendation.

Okinoshima island's forbidden to women & Unesco thinks it's ok since there's another place forbidden to women. whatever @UNESCO #WonderWoman

— V-Lex (@VitalMilla) July 10, 2017

The UNESCO Committee debated whether Okinoshima’s inclusion as a World Heritage site would be discriminatory, but found a precedent in Mount Athos, in Greece, which also prohibits entry to women. Okinoshima’s approach to gender segregation did not constitute a sufficient reason to prevent the island from becoming a World Heritage site, according to UNESCO spokesperson Roni Amelan.

An island official refuted comments saying the practice was discriminatory, and told AFP that the ban “is meant to protect women, the birth-giving gender” because travel by sea can be dangerous.

Still, some find that the decision sends the wrong message and is directly at odds with UNESCO’s Priority Gender Equality Action Plan, which has a stated goal to “ensure that a gender equality perspective is reflected in all its policies, programs, and processes.”

Rajan Zed, president of the U.S.-based Universal Society of Hinduism, called for UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova’s resignation for failing to uphold the organization’s ideals.

“Where women are revered, there the gods are pleased; where they are not, no rite will yield any fruit,” Zed said, quoting Hindu scriptures.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japanese Island That Bans Women is Now a UNESCO World Heritage Site appeared first on Law Street.

What were you doing at this time last year?

On June 8, 2016, exactly a year ago, The New York Times ran a front page story commemorating former secretary of state Hillary Clinton reaching the threshold of delegates and superdelegates needed to secure the Democratic Party nomination. This made Clinton the first woman to lead the presidential ticket for a major political party.

The front page #OTD in 2016. Hillary Clinton claims the Democratic nomination. #nytimes pic.twitter.com/IDHWQzIrK7

— New York Times OTD (@OnThisDayNYT) June 8, 2017

At this point, plenty of people had high hopes of seeing America’s first female president. Many experts doubted that Clinton, an experienced politician, would lose to real estate mogul Donald Trump, who was nearing his own nomination.

As we all know now, much has changed in the year since that front page ran. National mood has ebbed and flowed, and the feeling that it’s been a long year is pervasive across America on social media and in casual conversation. The country has undergone a serious transformation in the past year in part because of the election and in part because of current events which have stricken fear in many.

As a baseline, Trump secured the Republican nomination and fought hard against Clinton in the campaign before pulling off the upset and winning the 2016 election. But throughout the campaign there were numerous important events that continuously shocked the nation, often to no avail. There was the tape of him with Billy Bush boasting about groping women without consent. There was Trump’s defense of his gross behavior surrounding Miss Universe models, specifically 1996 winner Alicia Machado. And there was his endorsement from KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.

And since Trump’s inauguration in January, the political climate in America has been drastically altered. Trump has regularly embroiled himself in controversy, whether it was his executive orders restricting travel from mainly Muslim countries or his choice to fire FBI director James Comey. And don’t forget when Trump fired Attorney General Sally Yates after she didn’t defend his travel ban. Not to mention all of the times he’s taken to Twitter to spout baseless accusations against former President Barack Obama, the media, and other global leaders.

Most notably, since The New York Times ran that front page story the political, racial, and cultural divide has widened across America. From any vantage point, American society is different than it was when Clinton secured the nomination last June.

Polarization on the political spectrum has become more evident. It has become increasingly clear that Republicans and Democrats alike mostly discuss politics with those who agree with them, the Pew Research Center concluded.

That polarization has, at least in part, led to violence across America. Violence has broken out at numerous protests since Trump’s inauguration, including the Portland protests just this past weekend. Nationwide, racially motivated hate crimes have become a more pressing issue. After researching nine major metropolitan areas including New York City and Chicago, the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University found that hate crimes rose more than 20 percent in those areas. Hate crimes in New York City increased 24 percent from 2015 while Washington, D.C. had the largest increase at 62 percent. These hate crimes vary from racial threats to religious attacks against Jews or Muslims.

Additionally, people have become more skeptical of polling and poll analysis after pollsters’ failure to correctly predict the election. 538, an analysis site led by Nate Silver, is one of the organizations greatly criticized in the past year.

The truth is that it’s been a long year, particularly in the political realm. Many of the events that happened over this year have contributed to a feeling of despair, whether the events are related to terrorism, crime, or international affairs.

Part of this seismic shift has been the impactful global events that portray the changes over the past year. These events have shaped the past year and contributed to exhaustion of the American public. Here are some of the most notable:

• June 12: A lone gunman opened fire at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing 49 in one of the worst mass shootings in US history.
• July 6: African-American men Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were killed by police officers in New Orleans and St. Paul, respectively. Both deaths were caught on camera.
• July 15: An attempted military coup in Turkey failed and nearly 6,000 were arrested
• October 18: The White House said it was “confident” that Russia was behind the recent DNC email hacking in an attempt to influence the American election.
• November 4: The Paris Agreement on climate change went into effect. Trump recently announced he would be pulling the United States out of the agreement, provoking plenty of backlash.
• December 2: Trump spoke on the phone with Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen. This broke from traditional American “One China” policy that was put into place by President Richard Nixon in 1972.
• December 19: Andrey Karlov, Russian ambassador to Turkey, was assassinated as the lone gunman screamed “don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria!”
• January 21: Over 2 million people worldwide participated in a “Women’s March,” protesting newly inaugurated President Trump.

While Trump’s rise to prominence has had ripple effects, it’s no doubt that so have these events and Trump’s response to them. With a rise in hate crimes, polarization, and controversy, the past year has been one of the most unique and unpredictable in recent history. Whether the current state of affairs continues or not is unknown. After a hectic and stressful year, many are hoping things slow down, but there’s no way to predict what Trump, or anyone else, will do next.

Josh Schmidt

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

The post It Has Been a Long Year Since Hillary Clinton Was Nominated appeared first on Law Street.

Saudi Arabia marked the week following International Women’s Day with a historic event–the country’s first ever girls’ council, convened in the province of Qassim. The council is a small part of the sweeping Vision 2030 plan, a set of goals for the kingdom that includes creating a more tolerant and inclusive atmosphere for women. Yet the council has now become a viral joke rather than an important turning point for the country, after photos from the convening of the council revealed that it was entirely comprised of men.

Some women apparently do sit on the council, but the gender segregation codes of Saudi Arabia meant that they had to sit in a separate room, connected to the main conference by video link. In a country where women quite literally cannot get a seat at the table, what can the girls’ council accomplish?

Qassim Governor Prince Faisal bin Mishal bin Saud, who hosted the conference, framed the council as important because “we look at women as sisters to men.” This is far from a rallying cry for gender parity, but it may be the best we can expect from Saudi Arabia. Life for girls and women in the Kingdom is dictated entirely by their male guardians, who are able to control where they go, who they see, and what they do with virtually every moment of their day. Women are not treated as legal adults, which means even as progress slowly trickles into the country, they are still denied basic legal rights and protections.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, it is always wise to temper expectations and remember that the Vision 2030 goals may not actually be reached by 2030. Women’s rights are not the only issue on the table–poverty, youth unemployment, a lack of affordable housing and a clearly defined racial hierarchy that has been reinforced over the years by the wealthiest Saudi families preserving the status quo.

These civil rights issues are inextricably linked to the oil economy, which has concentrated wealth in certain pockets and has left the rest of the country out in the cold. Vision 2030’s mission requires an overhaul of every part of Saudi life–and it may be impossible to successfully implement the changes that must be made unless the government is willing to relax the ties between its extreme interpretation of religion and rule of law.

The Qassim girls’ council has already been turned into a meme, being compared to the photo of an all male Trump Administration team reinstating the Mexico City Policy (also known as the global gag rule) by executive order this year. Western news outlets picked up the images from Qassim, pointing out the absurdity of a girls’ council without any women present. Still, the criticism has not moved the Saudi organizers to change the make-up of the council or let the female advisers participate alongside their male counterparts.

I sincerely hope that the girls’ council does not fade into the background, and that it does receive the necessary funding and attention to advance gender equality. Yet, at this moment, it seems like a mere publicity stunt gone wrong: an attempt to showcase the Vision 2030 goals that revealed exactly how far Saudi Arabia still has to go.

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 Saudi Arabia Isn’t Going to Hit its 2030 Goal appeared first on Law Street.

Image courtesy of Emma Von Zeipel for Law Street Media

“I’m striking for the fact that we have a pussy grabber in the White House,” said Adina Klein, who said she is a rape survivor herself and that the election was a real trigger for her. “It’s been horrible. I’m striking for his disgusting cabinet appointments, I’m striking for the repeal of the ACA, I’m striking for all the women in my life that can’t strike.” She noted that she was lucky to be able to attend the demonstration without risking her job, as she could take a personal day from work.

Image courtesy of Emma Von Zeipel for Law Street Media

There is still a pay gap between men and women in the U.S. Right now women make about 79 cents for every dollar a man makes, which was one reason that Erica Jaffe went to the protest, along with her mother Jill. “Wage inequality is something that follows you your whole life. It usually starts when you’re 30, when it really widens, and after that point it’s really hard to catch up. It’s not fair,” said Erica. “It’s got to stop.

Although the focus of the day was on women’s rights–equal pay, the right to choose, and gender equality in general–many signs and chants also highlighted other causes. There were calls to save the Affordable Care Act, to welcome refugees and immigrants, to fight for transgender rights, and to impeach Donald Trump. As the mass of protesters started marching west toward Trump International Hotel, organizers and protesters gathered in the middle of the roundabout in Columbus Circle, prompting calls from police to disperse. In the end, some of the organizers were arrested.

Some of us have been arrested #DayWithoutAWoman pic.twitter.com/WSYVdrQjxA

— Women’s March (@womensmarch) March 8, 2017

Despite the arrests, the demonstration was peaceful and there were many families with children and babies. The march only went a couple of blocks to the Trump International Hotel by Central Park South, where people stopped and chanted at the building. The atmosphere was calm, even hopeful. Maybe it was because so many people of different genders, ethnicities, and ages came together, united.

Although I noticed one lonely Trump supporter in a red Make America Great Again hat who was walking around with two friends, heckling female protesters, nobody paid any attention to them. The focus was on the more important message–that women deserve as much respect as men.

“I’m a woman. And under current circumstances this is a pretty radical thing to stand up for,” said Ulli Barta. “It’s unbelievable what nowadays is being considered as the norm.”

Image courtesy of Emma Von Zeipel for Law Street Media

Marina Garcia-Vasquez agreed that being a woman is enough to protest in today’s political climate. “I’m here in solidarity and to support women’s rights in the workplace, as mothers in the workplace, and as women in society,” she said. “I mean the list goes on; reproductive rights, basic healthcare, anything, it starts from the basis of being a woman and demanding equal rights.”

Barta added that today, we can’t just be for women’s rights. “We have to be for civil rights, we have to be for LGBTQIA rights, we have to be for immigrant rights, we have to protect our environment.”

Check out some more photos below:

Image courtesy of Emma Von Zeipel for Law Street Media

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 International Women’s Day: Scenes from Outside the Trump International Hotel appeared first on Law Street.

Today is International Women’s Day as well as the “Day Without a Woman” strike, and in honor of that, we’re making today’s RantCrush all about women. 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:

A Day Without A Woman

Since today is International Women’s Day, many women are planning a strike. There will be demonstrations and rallies across the country, and the organizers behind the Women’s March are calling on women everywhere to take the day off from work, avoid shopping for a day, and wear red. This is to recognize “the enormous value that women of all backgrounds add to our socio-economic system–while receiving lower wages and experiencing greater inequities, vulnerability to discrimination, sexual harassment, and job insecurity,” a statement on the group’s website says.

A Day Without a Woman is tmrw! To join:

1) Take the day off
2) Avoid shopping – unless at women & minority-owned businesses
3) Wear RED pic.twitter.com/nqzLd7RwJ2

— AJ+ (@ajplus) March 7, 2017

Several schools are closed for the day since many teachers are planning to stay at home and women make up 76 percent of America’s public school teachers. The average American woman currently makes 79 cents for every dollar a man makes, but minority women make even less. Women make up 47 percent of the U.S. workforce, which means if every woman stayed home from work today, it would cost the country almost $21 billion, according to the Center for American Progress. That’s something to think about!

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 RantCrush Top 5: March 8, 2017 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:

According to the New York Times, Facebook has been accused of helping spread misinformation and fake news stories that “influenced how the American electorate” voted.
Even though Facebook continues to defend itself as nonpartisan, the idea that Facebook had a direct role in the election is, to quote Zuckerberg, “a pretty crazy idea.”

via GIPHY

It just goes to show that there’s nothing good about getting all your news from Facebook.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Melania Trump gave a rare speech in Pennsylvania on Thursday, in which she expressed her concerns about people being mean on the internet, causing many to ask: does she even know her husband?

Melania Trump has generally kept quiet in the campaign since it was revealed that she plagiarized parts of Michelle Obama’s speech from 2008 during the Republican National Convention in July. But on Thursday evening, Pennsylvania women got to hear what her plans would be if she were to become the First Lady.

Trump said she worries about “all of our children” and that people are being mean on the internet. “Our culture has gotten too mean and too rough, especially to children and teenagers,” she said. She went on to say that kids are “hurt when they are made fun of, or made to feel less in looks or intelligence. This makes their life hard. It can force them to hide and retreat.”

The irony in Melania Trump’s words–as her husband has become known for cyberbullying, insulting people based on their looks, and for the recent news that he may have sexually assaulted as many as 17 women–is almost too much. During the campaign, Donald Trump has insulted and verbally harassed anyone who is the least bit critical of him or doesn’t live up to his standards of appearance. The New York Times compiled a list of 282 people, places, and things that Trump has insulted since declaring his candidacy last June. The list includes, among many others, the TV show Saturday Night Live (“unfunny show”), actor Alec Baldwin (“portrayal stinks”), Megyn Kelly (“crazy” and “sick”), Alicia Machado (“disgusting”), and the United States (“weak”).

Melania Trump can’t be serious with being an advocate for cyberbullying when Donald Trump is a cyberbullying predator on & off social media! pic.twitter.com/lRAbw3b3Ba

— Mr. Weeks (@MrDane1982) November 4, 2016

Melania may not have realized that she used one of Hillary Clinton’s foremost arguments against Donald–also put forth by Michelle Obama–to challenge his fitness for the presidency. Clinton and Obama both talk about how important it is to be a role model for children and to protect them from language that is disrespectful and mean. On Thursday, Melania Trump spoke of the exact same problems. She said:

It is never OK when a 12-year-old girl or boy is mocked, bullied or attacked. It is terrible when that happens on the playground and it is unacceptable when it’s done by someone with no name hiding on the Internet.

The internet reacted right away.

.@MELANIATRUMP I’m so glad you lectured America on the evils of cyber bullying. Please also discuss it with this man.->

“Melania Trump” pic.twitter.com/lPL4V1j8Ma

— Cornelia (@PaladinCornelia) November 4, 2016

She also said that children are often picked on for their “looks and intelligence,” which she says isn’t cool. Trump also said that she will work for women’s rights. Maybe she forgot that her husband called Rosie O’Donnell “fat” and “ugly,” Bette Midler “extremely unattractive,” and Debbie Wasserman Schultz “highly neurotic.”

Donald Trump’s rhetoric has already had a notable effect on kids, a development that has actually been named the “Trump Effect.” His language may be increasing bullying in schools, especially for kids of a nationality, race, or religion that Trump has mocked.

Now Melania Trump says she would like to focus on the same groups and issues that the Democrats are using to criticize her husband. But the question is, will she be able to disregard everything that her husband has said and done, and how long will that last?

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 Melania Trump Wants to Fight Cyberbullying, but Forgot Who She Married appeared first on Law Street.

An amendment to the House’s annual defense authorization bill could require women to register for the draft in upcoming years. If passed, the amendment would require both men and women to register for Selective Service when they reach the age of 18. The amendment to this bill comes in the wake of a change in military policy to get rid of any gender-based restrictions on front-line combat.

This amendment was proposed by Senator Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California, in an attempt to start a discussion about the lifted gender restrictions on military service. Interestingly enough, he does not support women being in the front lines of duty or being drafted in the military. The only reason he raised this amendment was to get a conversation started in Congress about this policy because Hunter does not believe that the executive branch should be making decisions about American defense policy.

In order to convince members of Congress not to vote for the amendment, Hunter gave a speech that involved a lot of rhetoric about the dangers of war. This speech included phrases like “a draft is there to put bodies on the front lines to take the hill” and “the draft is there to get more people to rip the enemies’ throats out and kill them.” Hunter’s intent with this speech was to use graphic imagery as a way to dissuade people from voting for the amendment.

Unfortunately for Hunter, his plan didn’t go as well as expected. Several representatives spoke up in favor of the amendment after it was suggested. Representative Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, had a lot to say:

I actually think if we want equality in this country, if we want women to be treated precisely like men are treated and that they should not be discriminated against, we should be willing to support a universal conscription.

She believes that “there’s great merit in recognizing that each of us have an obligation to be willing to serve our country in a time of war.”

Even Senator John McCain spoke up in favor of including women in the draft, saying that:

As far as [he’s] concerned, if we’re going to put women into combat roles then that’s certainly logical, but [he’d] like to consult with the committee.

It’s obviously important to look at the whole picture when deciding on a policy change that could affect a lot of people across the country. To be fair, the draft hasn’t been used in over four decades since it was used to compile an army during the Vietnam War. People high up in the military claim that the likelihood of the draft being used any time soon, if at all, is pretty slim. The good news is that even the consideration of the amendment is a step forward in terms of gender equality. Women now have more rights than ever in the military, an accomplishment that should be celebrated.

Alexandra Simone

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

The post Women May Be Required to Register for the Draft appeared first on Law Street.

Women in Indiana are getting fired up about HEA 1337, a controversial abortion bill signed into law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence this past week. To stand up for what they believe is an infringement on women’s right to privacy, women from all over the state are calling the governor to inform him about their menstrual cycles.

The bill, which passed in the Indiana House earlier this month by a vote of 60-40, prohibits abortions based purely on sex, race, national origin, or disability of a fetus, as well as imposes several other harsh restrictions on women in attempt to lower rates of abortion in the state of Indiana. In the words of Republican Representative Sean Eberhart, who claims to be “as pro-life as they come,” the vote on this bill “is a perfect example of a bunch of middle-aged guys sitting in this room making decisions about what we think is best for women.”

The over involvement of middle-aged white men is what women in Indiana, and all across the country, are worried about and exactly why they started the Pence Period Phone Hotline.

Don't forget to call the Pence Period Hotline tomorrow! 317-232-4567 Finish the week BIG! Credit toN Beth Line pic.twitter.com/ym3BBdawJo

— PeriodsforPence (@periodsforpence) April 1, 2016

Friendly reminder from ur vajayjay to call @GovPenceIN to let him know what's up down there. Big PUSH! 317-232-4567 #women#PPIN#choice

— PeriodsforPence (@periodsforpence) April 1, 2016

This group, Periods for Pence, was created following Mike Pence’s signing of HEA 1337 to let the governor know how women feel about his intrusive bill. Both the Facebook and Twitter accounts are encouraging women to call the governor and give reports about the state of their periods so he can be as informed as possible, since he seems so concerned with the safety of women’s health.

The Facebook account, which features messages sent in by women who have called the governor, has post after post of hilarious conversations between these women and the people answering phones in the governor’s office. In one such post, a woman called the office and the conversation went as follows:

Them: “Good Morning, Governor Pence’s office”
Me: “Good Morning. I just wanted to inform the Governor that things seem to be drying up today. No babies seem to be up in there. Okay?”
Them: (Sounding strangely horrified and chipper at the same time) “Ma’am, can we have your name?”
Me: “Sure. It’s Sue.”
Them: “And your last name?”
Me: “Magina. That’s M-A-G-I-N-A. It rhymes with–”
Them: “I’ve got it.”
*Click*

When she called back a few minutes later, she was transferred directly to a voicemail where she left a message:

Hello, this is Sue Magina again. I just hit a pothole on I-70. It was a doozy! I’m worried it might have shaken something around up in there, and I wanted to make sure that was addressed in this new abortion law. I knew Governor Pence would be worried. Thanks.

While what these women are doing is certainly funny, there is also a deeper and more serious meaning behind the movement. Women in the state of Indiana and the country as a whole are tired of men in legislative bodies making all the decisions about what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. While these men may claim to have women’s best interest in mind, they have no idea what it’s like to be a woman or face the health issues women deal with on a daily basis. This movement calls their bluff by making a satirical statement and simultaneously educating the governor’s office about individual differences in menstrual cycles from woman to woman.

Women are working their ways up in this world, but, unfortunately, we are still the minority in most, if not all, legislative bodies. As a result men are making a majority of legislative decisions about our health and bodies and it’s time to speak out about why that’s wrong. Because, at the end of the day, the reality of this situation is that it’s not the Governor of Indiana or any other man who is affected by these laws–it’s women!

@periodsforpence Lets change Pence's favorite hashtag #astatethatworks to a more honest assessment of the situation: #astatethatworksformen

— alix naveh (@alixnaveh) April 1, 2016

So, go ahead. Call male representatives making decisions about women’s health in your state and let them know all the dirty details of your menstrual cycle so they can make more informed decisions in the future and better understand exactly what their laws mean for all of us. Let’s make state and national policies that work for all of us.

Alexandra Simone

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

The post Periods for Pence: Update Your Governor on Your Menstrual Cycle Today! appeared first on Law Street.

Whoopi Goldberg is the latest celebrity to try to get in on the legal marijuana market. She has started the “Whoopi & Maya brand,” which will produce marijuana-infused products advertised as solutions for pesky period cramps.

Whoopi Goldberg partners with Maya Elisabeth, And announces launch of @whoopiandmaya. A product line for women. pic.twitter.com/sUC5N8rs8r

— _DCNetwork_ (@_DCNetwork_) March 30, 2016

Goldberg is teaming up with Maya Elisabeth from Om Edibles, an all-female edibles company, hence the company name. They plan on starting with four products, available this April. The products will only be sold in California right now due to complicated legal restrictions in other states. According to the Daily Beast, the product line will include:

A ‘raw sipping chocolate’ infused with CBD or THC, a tincture (liquid extract) for ‘serious discomfort,’ a THC-infused bath soak, and a topical rub for localized pain.

Goldberg has been transparent about her marijuana use, particularly the fact that she uses a vape pen to help her with pain relief and dealing with stress. Goldberg explained her motivation for creating these products, highlighting the difficulties that are inherent in using medical marijuana:

For me, I feel like if you don’t want to get high high, this is a product specifically just to get rid of discomfort. Smoking a joint is fine, but most people can’t smoke a joint and go to work.

This, you can put it in your purse. You can put the rub on your lower stomach and lower back at work, and then when you get home you can get in the tub for a soak or make tea, and it allows you to continue to work throughout the day.

It makes sense that Goldberg wants to tap into the rapidly-growing marijuana market. The results of early legalization in states like Colorado and Washington look very good, the market is growing annually by 31 percent, and some experts estimate that it could become a $20 billion market by 2020.

While others have called their product niche, Goldberg and Elisabeth disagree, given that women do make up a little over half of the United States population. If the marijuana industry grows as quickly as is expected, and these products catch on, Goldberg and Elisabeth could have a total winner on their hands.

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 Whoopi Goldberg is a Ganjapreneur Who Wants to Help Treat Your Period Cramps appeared first on Law Street.

A disgruntled mom of three, Emily Locke, posted a lengthy Facebook status Monday about the experience she had while breastfeeding her youngest child at the Cleveland History Center in Cleveland, Ohio. The family was there for her sister’s wedding and, during pictures, her nine-month old decided it was dinner time. The mother reportedly sat down there in the museum to breastfeed, and it wasn’t long before a museum worker tried to stop her.

“I was approached by a woman who told me ‘you aren’t allowed to do that here.'” Locke says in the post. “I responded that I was actually legally allowed to nurse my child. She said it was against the museum policy and I had to stop. I refused and she said she would have to get her manager.”

The woman Locke assumed was the manager spoke to her as well, informing Locke there were areas of the museum she could “do that” and that she would need to move because it is a “family museum” and they were trying to “protect the innocent children.” Locke repeated her earlier statement that women are allowed to breastfeed wherever they need to, and eventually the manager left her alone.

Locke’s post has been shared thousands of times in the last 24 hours, and many enraged social media supporters have lambasted the Cleveland History Center to express their outrage.

“I was so disappointed and saddened by this,” Locke goes on to say. “I was treated as if I was doing something disgusting and inappropriate. That I was in some way hurting the innocence of children.”

The museum has since come out with an apology, claiming it has no policies against women breastfeeding on its property, and it will be re-training staff on its policies:

This evening, we were made aware of an unfortunate incident over the weekend where a nursing mother was urged to refrain from breastfeeding her child in a public museum area by museum staff.

We offer our sincerest apologies to this mom and her family. Cleveland History Center does not have any policies that prohibit breastfeeding in our public areas. We do not condone the behavior of the staff involved, and have begun taking next steps to address this issue.

Our hopes are that this incident will serve as a teachable moment and an opportunity to improve our guest experience as we continue to provide a safe and family fun environment for all.

This is not an isolated incident. Women are shamed for breastfeeding in public daily, even though 49 states plus D.C. have laws allowing women to do so (with the exception of Idaho — what the hell, Idaho?). Many of those same states also exempt breastfeeding women from public indecency laws.

But just because it’s legal doesn’t mean women won’t get harassed. YouTube social experiments, like the one from Joey Salads below, showcase just how prevalent the misunderstanding about breastfeeding is:

It’s extremely disheartening to see the number of women who shame a mother for breastfeeding, because that means those women have been taught that breasts are something to be ashamed of or to be hidden, when the purpose of a mother’s breast is simply to give sustenance to her child. There is nothing shameful in that. Mothers should know their rights and stand up for them, like Emily Locke did, but they should not be harassed in the first place.

To learn more about breastfeeding laws in your state, click here.

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 Cleveland Museum Called Out For Shaming A Breastfeeding Mom appeared first on Law Street.

A new ad released by the Our Principles PAC attacks Donald Trump using his own words–specifically his own words about women.  The roughly one minute spot uses past Trump quotes about various women–including Princess Diana, Carly Fiorina, and Megyn Kelly–to highlight how the current Republican frontrunner ostensibly feels about women.

The Our Principles PAC is conservative-led but anti-Trump, and was founded this January. It was created by Katie Packer, a Mitt Romney aide during the 2012 presidential election. Our Principles PAC’s mission, as stated on its website, is:

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post New Ad “Quotes” Highlights Trump’s Nasty Comments About Women appeared first on Law Street.

The NFL has traditionally received plenty of criticism for its handling of domestic violence–particularly when it comes to the league’s treatment of players who have committed such acts. But Super Bowl 50, tonight, will feature a moving public service announcement drawing attention to domestic violence. Check out the PSA, which appears to be aimed specifically at young people, below:

The ad was created by a non-profit called NO MORE, in partnership with an advertising agency called Grey. The NFL donated the ad time, and paid for the production costs. It features one young woman talking to another about a Super Bowl party. The invitee tells her friend that she doesn’t “think it’s a good idea” because “Jake is in one of his moods.” It ends with the party host asking her friend if she’s ok, and then the ellipses that signal that a message is being typed. But the ellipses never turn into a message, implying that something happened to the young woman whose boyfriend was “in one of his moods.”

This is actually the second year running that there has been a domestic violence PSA during the Super Bowl; last year’s main event featured a similar spot, also produced by NO MORE. A camera panned around a house where someone was attacked, with a 911 voice call as the audio part of the spot. Check it out below:

The NFL’s history with domestic violence has been a storied one, and there’s still a lot of work to be done on the part of the league. For example, the NFL came under fire once again this year for its treatment of Greg Hardy, who was suspended for only four games last year after assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Not only did many view the four-game suspension as entirely too short, but were also unhappy with the fact that he was welcomed back with open arms after his suspension. More recently, there have been allegations that Johnny Manziel, also known as “Johnny Football” threatened and assaulted his girlfriend.

So, while the NFL has done a good thing by promoting the PSAs, actions speak louder than words, and the NFL’s actions still could use some serious work.

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 NFL Takes on Domestic Violence With Super Bowl PSA appeared first on Law Street.

Since the United States first introduced the Selective Service System in 1940, only men in the U.S. have been required to register with the government agency in the case a draft needs to be implemented. However, with recent news that all combat jobs in the U.S. military are going to be opened up to women, some top U.S. military officials are now acknowledging that women should be registered for future military drafts as well.

General Mark A. Milley, chief of staff of the Army, and General Robert B. Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, both testified at a hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier today; they agreed that it’s time to register women for the draft. Senator Claire McCaskill, who also supports including women in the Selective Service registry sparked the conversation when she asked the two officials about it. However, other leaders, including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Army Acting Secretary Patrick Murphy only said that the issue should be researched and discussed.

Currently, only men between the ages of 18-25 are required to register with Selective Service in the U.S.–although there are exceptions, such as men who are handicapped, or foreign nationals in the U.S. on student visas. There is also “conscientious objector status” which can be claimed by someone who objects to serving  in the military on moral or religious principles. According to the Selective Service website:

Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don’t have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.

The information maintained by the Selective Service System is to be used in the case of a draft. However, a draft hasn’t actually been implemented in the United States since 1973, during the Vietnam War.

There are obviously a lot of steps that would need to be put in place before young women would be required to sign up for the draft; even the integration of women in all combat roles is expected to take up to three years. But as that process gets started, it may be something that we hear about more and more.

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 Will Women Start Registering for the Draft? appeared first on Law Street.

Eight men have been arrested following the hundreds of robberies and assaults that occurred on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany. Over 600 criminal reports were submitted regarding New Year’s Eve in Cologne, and over half of those reports involved sexual harassment or assault. A large number of the victims who reported their attacks described their assailants as Middle Eastern, which triggered fears of backlash against Germany’s refugee population. Angela Merkel has remained firm in her commitment to refugee acceptance and integration but the attacks in Cologne may provide a critical groundswell of support for anti-immigration groups. At this time, one 26-year-old Algerian asylum-seeker is in custody for groping a woman and stealing her phone but the refugee status of the other suspects in custody is mostly unknown. Read on for a closer look at the events of New Year’s Eve and what they may mean for Germany in the coming years.

The Attacks across the City

Over 1,000 drunken men gathered outside of Cologne’s central train station, adjacent to its famous cathedral, to ring in 2016. It was within that neighborhood that a large part of the attacks took place, as young women emerged from the train station and headed off into the night. Groups of men who were reported to be of “North African/Arab” origin surrounded young women, groping and assaulting them. Dozens of men would circle women, both those walking alone and those in groups, forcing them to “run a gauntlet” to escape. In addition to sexual attacks, hundreds of people reported theft of money, phones, and valuables.

The identities of the attackers were initially unclear but in the days following the attacks, a significant number of the victims described their attackers as young men of Middle Eastern origin. The majority of the women targeted were German nationals. One woman reported that her rapist told her “German women are just for sex.” Media reports of the incidents were initially only running in local newspapers but within a few days, the story of the horrific night had spread worldwide.

The police have stated that they have never dealt with this kind of situation before and had not created a plan of action to combat such wide-scale criminal activity occurring at once. The preceding year, police officers were deployed in the same volume and had no problems with crowd control. However, with the influx of people outside the station, there were so many attacks happening simultaneously around the central station that security forces were essentially powerless to stop them. The violence was not confined to Cologne, as hundreds of other sexual assault cases poured in from across Germany on New Year’s Eve. However, the collective nature of the attacks in Cologne and the authorities’ disturbingly lackluster response on the ground outside the station mark them as unique. In the wake of the New Year’s Eve attacks, several German cities cancelled other winter celebrations out of fear of similar widespread violence.

Unexpected Implications

Continued Anti-Immigration Sentiment

Right wing protesters, already against the influx of refugees, have doubled down on their positions. During a recent protest, they clashed with police in riot gear, screaming at police officers for not defending local women–although it was unclear if they meant defending them from assault or defending them from refugees. One supporter of the anti-immigration Pegida movement went so far as to refer to the attacks as “bad for the women, but good for us, because the people are being woken up.” Anti-immigration rallies were held across the country in the wake of the attacks, with hundreds of people carrying signs reading “Rapefugees Not Welcome.” Although few of the women who were assaulted have come forward with anti-immigrant positions, Pegida and other groups have taken it upon themselves to be their voices.

Unfortunately, many onlookers worry that the transparent racism and xenophobia of Pegida undermines the validity of the victim’s reports. One young woman named Selina publicly discussed her attack and her attackers (men of Middle Eastern descent who spoke Arabic and did not seem to understand German) and was accused of being racist by a variety of internet sources. Women seeking justice for the crimes committed against them should feel comfortable reporting physical descriptions of their attackers but in the case of  the Cologne attacks, where race and violence are inextricably linked, those who report their attack may become targets for the vitriol of those who assume they are prejudiced.

An Attack on Women

Two weeks after the attack, The Irish Times published an editorial on the violence in Cologne which stated that

Perpetrators of sexual assault against women do have one thing in common, and it’s not religion or ethnicity, it’s gender…Perpetrators of sexual assault are typified by their diversity. But the common denominator is men. Until we are honest with ourselves about that, and until prevention focuses on stopping men from assaulting women – not blaming one demographic of men, or outlining ways in which women can avoid potential assault – we are kidding ourselves. What happened in Cologne, that mass act, was primarily unusual in its collective nature. But all over the world, in every village, town and city, mass acts of misogyny are fragmented daily, manifesting as individual assaults. We ignore them, because they are not as newsworthy. Victims of sexual assault are just as diverse. Being raped transcends all demographics.

A majority of news outlets have chosen to classify the attacks in Cologne as an issue of sexual assault and violence rather than an issue of race. Evidence from police data shows that refugees have, in fact, committed less crime than native Germans since arriving in the country, therefore outside of the right wing rallies, few news outlets have traced the crimes to be associated with race. While the German government has prioritized deporting refugees who are found guilty of sexual and physical assault, women’s advocacy groups argue that this is not about immigration policy–it is about protection for women. The events of Cologne are being attributed to a massive spike in the number of young men in Germany, which changes the demographics of security.

Regardless of race or socioeconomic status, men are more likely to commit violent acts than women. Considering that the majority of sexual assault cases involve the assault of women by men, the shifting gender dynamics of Germany may affect the country’s future. Cologne has been labeled a potential watershed moment for legal reform and creating protections for all women against all forms of sexual harassment and abuse. As Germany adapts to its new population, the legal processes and security of the nation will have to change in tandem. The brutality of New Year’s Eve in Cologne may inspire German officials to create comprehensive legal protection for women who are sexually harassed and assaulted.

Conclusion

The attacks in Cologne will be remembered as an unprecedented night of terror but the implications of the attacks go beyond criminal activity. Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome over a million refugees (and potentially more in the coming year) into Germany was controversial and she will likely have to keep defending it for years to come. Asylum seekers engaging in criminal activity only fuels the fears of Germans who were already opposed to the influx of refugees. The entire refugee population should not be held accountable for the actions of a few, but as security services are sorting through hundreds of potential suspects who often match the description of Middle Eastern refugees, right-wing xenophobes are gaining public support. The German police presence will need to adapt and expand to deal with its swelling population if they want to avoid a repeat of Cologne in the coming years but that will require not only a new style of training, but an increase in the number of staff they have available for deployment at any given time. Cologne will not only be an important marker for the history of women’s rights and violent crime, it may serve as the trigger for an new era of policing in Germany.

Resources

CNN: Eight in Pretrial Custody in Cologne New Year’s Eve Mass Robberies, Sex Assaults

CNN: Cologne, Germany: Hundreds of Sexual Assault Charges from New Year’s Eve

BBC: First Suspect Held Over Sex Assault Claims

The New York Times: As Germany Welcomes Migrants, Sexual Attacks in Cologne Point to a New Reality

Huffington Post: Here’s What We Know So Far About The Sexual Assaults At Cologne’s Train Station

Daily Mail: Migrant Sexually Assaulted 25-year-old Victim after Telling her ‘German Women are Just There for Sex’

NBC News: Cologne Sex Attacks ‘Good for Us,’ Anti-Refugee Protesters Say

Breitbart: Cologne Sexual Assault Victim called a Racist and Harassed after Identifying Her Attackers

The Irish Times: Cologne Assaults a Mass Act of Misogyny

The Local: Police: Refugees Commit Less Crime than Germans

TIME: Reaction to Cologne Attacks Should Focus on Women’s Rights

Psychology Today: Male Aggression: Why are Men More Violent?

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 The Impacts of Widespread Sexual Assault in Cologne appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

Alexandra Simone

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

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

“Bob’s Burgers” is a show that boasts positive female role models with the “strong, smart, sensual” Tina, driven, witty, entrepreneurial  Louise, and determined, bright Linda. But, despite its feminist females, the show sometimes includes passing jokes alluding to sexual assault. The problem is that jokes like these encourage lax attitudes about sexual assault in a society that already ignores victims too often.

When a popular show goes on its winter hiatus, it’s time to fill the void by binge watching old episodes on Netflix. Revisiting past episodes reveals that the mostly feminist-friendly “Bob’s Burgers” has some sexist hiccups, which are alarming for such a progressive show. Season 2, episode 8 deals with Bob’s new found love for pat-a-cake. He convinces his friend, Teddy, to “cake,” and almost immediately Teddy begins to protest. He shouts that the hand game hurts him and he doesn’t want to do it anymore. But Bob continues slapping Teddy’s hands and yelling at him to keep his hands up.

The scene’s humor makes Teddy, a large, grizzly man, play the vulnerable role. The joke is that the dialogue (which would normally be spoken by a man and the woman he is sexually assaulting) comes from two men, who are friends, in a non-sexual situation.

Teddy’s line, “I don’t like it! I don’t like it! Stop!” and Bob’s aggressive behavior are meant to spoof an abusive relationship. But, what’s so funny about sexual assault?

The scene is fundamentally not politically correct, a concern that gained strength during last year’s discourse on trigger warnings. The New York Times and The Atlantic weighed in on collegiate trigger warnings this past fall to examine whether they encourage “coddling” or respect–and that debate will probably be continued in 2016.

But, trigger warnings and PC standards leave comics with a dilemma because jokes are designed to not be safe or appropriate. Should there be a line comedy can’t cross or does that ruin the art form? Jokes will push that PC line as far as an audience will allow. For example, comedy has evolved from eventual audience rejection of offensive practices like black face. In this case, the show has plenty of funny material so why can’t it evolve away from jokes like this one? For a show like “Bob’s Burgers” that is often heralded for its feminism, it may be time to consider that evolution.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

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

The post Political Correctness and Comedy in “Bob’s Burgers”: Where’s the Line? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

Here is an excerpt from the climactic argument:

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

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

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

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

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

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

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

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

Last week, a report obtained by the Washington Post revealed that there have been seven sexual assaults reported within the last year in a Marine Corps unit that was specifically designed to study how to best integrate women into combat roles. The report rocked the Marine Corps, which had just published a study claiming that sexual assault in mixed-gender units is no higher than in the Marine Corps as a whole. That study was by no means a statistical analysis to brag about–for years, the Marine Corps has had the highest rate of sexual assault against women in the armed forces.

The gender-integrated unit was meant to be a shining example of how much the Marine Corps has matured and adapted to protect women who serve, but it has now become a harsh reminder of the prevalence of sexual violence in combat.  The unit in question was comprised of approximately 100 women and 300 men and underwent training at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, which is the largest Marine Corps base on the East Coast, (on a weekday there may be as many as  100,000 people at Camp Lejeune and at the neighboring air station) before training in California.

Six of the seven assaults discussed in the Post report were reported anonymously, which is often considered the safer option among survivors of sexual assault, especially in cases where the survivor has to be in constant contact with the assailant in the workplace. According to a recent Pentagon survey on sexual assault, 62 percent of women who reported being sexually assaulted experienced retaliation.  It is twelve times more likely that a sexual assault survivor in the military will be retaliated against than it is likely their attacker will be prosecuted for a sex offense. Even for those survivors who report their assault, justice is rarely delivered.  A 2014 RAND survey found that 45 percent of survivors were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their chain of command’s response after they reported their assault. Read on to learn about the issue of sexual assault in the Marine Corps, the newest controversial report, and the considerations moving forward.

Welcome to Camp LeJeune

Before the Marine Corps continues its efforts to meet President Obama’s goal to integrate women into all combat positions or provide specific exemptions by 2016, a spotlight must be placed on the unit that trained at Camp Lejeune. Camp Lejeune is not the only military base where sexual assault has taken place (and the report does not cite specifically where the assaults took place) but as one of the largest bases in the country, its policies provide an important glimpse into the culture of sexual assault awareness in the Marine Corps.  It is obviously easier to police smaller bases, but one would hope that the larger Marine bases serve as models for procedure across the country.

Camp Lejeune, built in 1941, has a history of conflict and scandal. From 1957 to 1987, the water on base was contaminated with over 70 chemicals that poisoned Marines and their families (the staff on base did not comply with regulations on the dumping of chemicals). In 2012, the Janey Ensminger Act was passed to compensate the hundreds of people who were victims of the contamination but Camp Lejeune will forever be remembered for its failure to respond to residents’ claims sooner. Camp Lejuene was also the site of a military riot between black and white Marines on July 20, 1969 during which fifteen Marines were injured and one man was left dead. In the wake of the riot, the Marine Corps reformed race relations, but once again it was criticized for taking too little action, too late.

The modern Camp Lejeune is a thriving military community that usually makes headlines for its major pediatrics center, innovative renewable energy program and commitment to Marine families. However the size of the base, and the constantly rotating military population, makes it difficult to police effectively. Camp Lejeune was the site of 70 cases of sexual assault in 2012, a figure that has held relatively consistent in the intervening years.  Sexual assault cases account for approximately 60 percent of the caseload for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) unit on base. Earlier this year, Camp Lejeune hosted a 5K run to raise awareness for sexual assault and promoted April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. However, the administration on base has yet to release a statement on the sexual assaults that were reported by the Post.

Camp Lejeune is as large and well-organized as a medium-sized city (in fact, Jacksonville, NC, the nearest city, has a smaller population than that of the base–only 70,000 people) and therefore it has to address sexual assault as a serious threat to its population. Camp Lejeune operates a 24/7 Sexual Assault Hotline and connects military families with support groups, as well as all the resources that the Marine Corps offers on a national level. Yet in 2012, it was the site of more sexual assaults than any other Marine base in the world. Critics hope that the disproportionate number of sexual assaults that occur at Camp Lejeune will encourage Marine Corps leadership to funnel more resources into sexual assault awareness and prevention, but at this point, Camp Lejeune’s efforts at reform are underwhelming.

Reporting Sexual Assault in the Marine Corps

The Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Program (SAPR) performs outreach to military members who have been victims of sexual assault, connecting survivors with advocacy groups, medical aid, and legal advice.  In a 2013 meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee, General James F. Amos claimed that the Marine Corps has witnessed measurable improvements in handling sexual assault cases, but Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) has repeatedly argued that there is a need for reform and restructuring of the SAPR and other outreach initiatives. In 2013, Gillibrand introduced the Military Justice Improvement Act, which aimed to reform the procedures for the process of trial by court-martial, setting up an independent tribunal where survivors can report assault without fear of retaliation. Taking the judicial process out of the original chain of command was a controversial move on Gillibrand’s part–some of her fellow Democrats disagree with implementing a different process. However, Sarah Plummer, a survivor of military sexual assault has stated that:

Having someone within your direct chain of command handling the case, it just doesn’t make sense. It’s like your brother raping you and having your dad decide the case.

For the past two years, the Military Justice Improvement Act has fallen short of the votes needed for it to pass in the Senate–but it has put pressure on the military (specifically the Marine Corps) to improve its sexual assault response programs. According to a 2014 SAPR report, the primary goals of the Department of Defense’s Strategic Plan are prevention, investigation, accountability, advocacy/victim assistance, and assessment. SAPR focuses on developing the advocacy/victim assistance portion of the plan but there have been several concerted efforts to improve prevention: standardizing procedures that prohibit inappropriate relations between recruiters/trainers and recruits/trainees, adapting alcohol policies, and designing a collaborative forum for sexual assault prevention.

Integrating Women in Combat

The Marine Corps is considered the most difficult sector to integrate out of all of the military branches trying to introduce women to combat units. The Marines are 93 percent male, have only a handful of integrated units, and still train male and female recruits separately. The ongoing debate on integrating women into combat (examined in depth by Law Streeter Jessica McLaughlin) has been influenced in recent months by a leaked Marines Corps report that states women in combat may reduce performance, but may also increase decision making in the field. This report did not find sufficient evidence to change the traditional mentality of Marine Corps leadership on integrating women, and it has been predicted that the Marine Corps will ask for exemptions from President Obama’s order (keeping some positions male-only). The Marine Corps have not announced any plans to disband the units designed to test the integration of women in combat, yet once President Obama leaves office, his successor may not place sufficient pressure on the Marines to integrate. If that happens, many fear that the Marine Corps will almost definitely return to their segregated, traditional employment practices. For women who have begun training in combat practices, this would be a major step backwards professionally. Integrating more women into combat positions would not only create parity in the armed forces, it would place massive pressure on the Marine Corps to improve its sexual assault prevention program.

Conclusion

Women have served in the Marines since 1918 (in clerical positions) and were integrated into the Marine Corps in 1948. Their service to their country has paralleled that of their male counterparts, and participating in combat scenarios would let them reach the ultimate level of commitment to their profession. However, if sexual assault continues to plague the Marine Corps’ combat units, women cannot perform their duties and contribute to the mission of the armed forces. The deadline for the armed forces to integrate women into combat is January 2016. If the Marines commit to full integration, they will need to reexamine their approach to sexual assault in order to protect Marines both at home and abroad.

Resources

Primary

Kristin Gillibrand: Comprehensive Resource Center for the Military Justice Improvement Act

Department of Defense:  Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, Fiscal Year 2014

Additional

The Washington Post: In Marine Unit Focused on Integrating Women, Seven Sex Assaults Reported

Scribd: Marine Corps Analysis of Female Integration

Stars and Stripes: Reports of Sexual Assault Made by Marines in Unit Focused on Integration of Women

MarineCorpsTimes: New Data Shows Marine Corps has Highest Rate of Sexual Assault Against Women

Human Rights Watch: US: Military Whistleblowers at Risk

Huffington Post: Military Rape Cases Will Stay Within The Chain Of Command

Huffington Post: The Military Justice Improvement Act Ensures Justice, Despite What Its Critics Say

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 Still Not Good Enough: Sexual Assault in the Marine Corps appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

Jillian Sequeira

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

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

Sponsored Content

Lately, we’ve been inundated with information on women’s underrepresentation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). But what doesn’t get a lot of recognition is that inequality in science doesn’t just apply to the gender of the people working on new developments–it can extend to the nature of the developments themselves. Medical research has a history of being disproportionately biased toward men, despite the fact that differences between the sexes affect everything from how diseases should be treated to how medications are developed. Bias in medical research extends beyond the lab, and that’s a problem. Read on to learn about the need for equality in medical research, and how ensuring that equality is a step toward good health for all.

History of Sexism in Science

Sexism has been endemic in many aspects of scientific research; a full historical review would be as lengthy as it would be disheartening. But it’s important to recognize a consistent tradition of sex-based inequality in medical research. It has long been assumed that conclusions can be applied generally to both men and women, without taking into account the need to design studies that focus specifically on the biological and physical differences between the sexes. There have been myriad reasons for this lack of female inclusion. Science was heavily focused on studying the “norm,” and the “norm” as pertaining to scientific research was a roughly 155-pound man. Moreover, it was believed that the only difference between men and women were their respective sex organs. Furthermore, concerns regarding testing on pregnant women, or potentially-pregnant women, and the harm that could happen to fetuses discouraged researchers from including women of child-bearing age, and sometimes women as a whole due to their changing hormone cycles.

However, those assumptions finally began to change, albeit slowly, in the later decades of the 20th century. In 1985, a report released by the Public Health Service Task Force on Women’s Health Issues concluded that “the historical lack of research focus on women’s health concerns has compromised the quality of health information available to women as well as the health care they receive.” Founder of the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR ®) Dr. Florence Haseltine, MD, PhD, was working for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the mid-1980s when she began championing the need for medical research that recognized differences between men and women. She eventually coined the term “sex-based biology,” essentially meaning the study of the sex differences between men and women and how they apply to different aspects of medical research and health. Dr. Haseltine worked to confront different ways in which this inequality was manifested, including by advocating for more women to be included in clinical trials. Despite the fact that the NIH had recognized that inclusion of women in clinical trials is essential, they still aren’t always included.

These revelations sparked action by government agencies including the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Congressional Caucus on Women’s Issues. But it correspondingly also sparked the need for an organization that could champion the cause of sex-based biology head on. The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR) was founded in 1990 to “bring attention to the lack of inclusion of women and minorities in medical research and clinical trials.”

While progress has been made in including women in scientific research, there’s still substantial work to be done. Women and minorities remain underrepresented in clinical trials and medical research.

Why is it so important that sex differences are taken into account in medical research?

Put simply: men and women are biologically different. Health differences between men and women range from a prevalence of a particular disease, to the ways in which it manifests itself, to the drugs used to treat it. For example, SWHR focuses on Alzheimer’s Disease and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) as two of the many illnesses that deserve a look through a sex-based biological lens.

Alzheimer’s Disease 

Alzheimer’s Disease is one example of a condition that disproportionately affects women. In fact, women are almost twice as likely to be affected by Alzheimer’s as men. Overall, it is the fifth most common cause of death for American women. This increased prevalence for women isn’t just coincidental. There are specific sex differences that need to be taken into account when it comes to the study of how and why Alzheimer’s Disease strikes some and not others. According to experts at SWHR’s Alzheimer’s Roundtable, there are many different factors to consider:

Women suffering from depression have a 90 percent increased risk compared to men and an even greater risk after menopause, due to decreased estrogen levels. Another risk factor is having a hysterectomy and ovaries removed. Women who remove their ovaries before the age of 48 have a 70 percent increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s. However, if that woman used estrogen hormone therapy until menopause, she reduces her risk.

In order to prevent the devastating onset of Alzheimer’s–which is estimated to affect 15 million people over the next 15 years–it is essential to understand what role sex differences play and how women’s physiology can make them, in some cases, more susceptible.

Cardiovascular Disease (CVD)

Despite popular perception about its frequency in the male population, cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an acute problem for women. In fact, CVD accounts for one in three deaths among American women–more than all cancers combined.

It’s also another example of an illness that can manifest differently between men and women, and has different risk factors. For example, CVD appears on average seven to 10 years later for women than men. There are also risk factors that are more visible for women than men, such as the fact that young women who smoke are at a higher relative risk for developing CVD than men who smoke.

Moreover, the way that CVD presents in women can be different than in men–sometimes leading to a failure by healthcare professionals to detect symptoms in a timely fashion. Women’s symptoms can include fatigue and indigestion, and can appear up to a month before a heart attack. These differences can also lead to misdiagnosis when a woman is actually experiencing a cardiac event–a study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that women under 55 were seven times more likely to be misdiagnosed than men. It’s important that researchers and doctors consider how not only different sex-based risk factors contribute to CVD, but also how different symptoms present themselves.

Another issue with a male-centric view of CVD is that symptoms that are more prevalent for men have been more widely publicized and focused upon in public service campaigns. As a result, women may not recognize the symptoms or risk factors themselves–the following video created by SWHR highlights some of the gaps in public knowledge:

Continued Underrepresentation in Clinical Trials and Research

It’s evident that progress has been made in including women in clinical trials–particularly when it comes to specific topics like heart disease and breast cancer. However, there’s still much work to be done. As recently as 2014, the FDA moved toward greater transparency in disclosing the sex breakdown of those who participate in clinical trials. However, that news was bittersweet–it confirmed long-standing concerns about the inclusion of women in clinical trials. SWHR released a statement about the FDA’s disclosure, stating:

We commend the FDA for the effort in collecting and releasing these data to the public and we believe it is an initial first step towards reducing the disparities and lack of information on sex and ethnic differences. But as is evident, the percentage of minority participation is dismal and while there are women in all of the trials, the numbers are not statistically significant to reach any clinical relevance.

So, where are researchers still struggling when it comes to including women in clinical trials and research?

Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Trials 

While the risk of CVD has been well-recognized by proponents of sex-based biology, and women have been increasingly included in studies about cardiovascular disease, there’s still a struggle to make sure that studies report on gender differences. According to a 2009 paper by the American Heart Association (AHA) on the “Status of Women in Cardiovascular Clinical Trials,” both government and non-government studies continued to fail to report on sex differences in CVD studies between 2000-2006. The AHA stated:

An analysis of trials included in Cochrane meta-analyses (Cochrane Systematic Reviews) for the inclusion of women in cardiovascular clinical trials and for the reporting of gender-based analyses showed similar results. Of 258 clinical trials studied, women constituted only 27 percent of the pooled population and of 196 trials which included both genders, only 33 percent reported gender-based outcomes. When analyzed by year of publication before or after 1993, there was no difference in the frequency of gender-based analyses.

In order to ensure that the differences in the ways that women and men present and experience CVD are taken into account, reporting on sex differences in clinical trials needs to be a priority.

Conclusion

There’s no doubt that we’ve come far in this field and an improved concentration on exploring sex-based biology has resulted in a better understanding of sex differences–but we need to continue to such efforts in order to promote good health for all men and women. Clinical trials need to be designed to ensure not only the inclusion of, but also the recognition of their differences. Working toward inclusivity of medical research will benefit us all by increasing our understanding of what causes various illnesses and how to treat them.

Resources

Primary 

Society for Women’s Health Research: History

Society for Women’s Health Research: Timeline

Society for Women’s Health Research: News

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Leading Causes of Death

Additional

Journal of Applied Physiology: Sex and Gender: What is the Difference?

American Heart Association: Status of Women in Cardiovascular Clinical Trials

Chronic Neuroimmune Diseases: Yes, Biologically Speaking, Sex Does Matter

American Journal of Nursing: Progress, Not Perfection

Newswise: Alzheimer’s and the Downward Spiral: SWHR Holds Congressional Briefing About Women and Alzheimer’s Disease

Netherlands Heart Journal: Gender Differences in Coronary Heart Disease

Heart Sisters: Heart Attack Misdiagnosis in Women

Society for Women’s Health Research

The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®), is a national non-profit based in Washington D.C. that is widely recognized as the thought-leader in promoting research on biological differences in disease. SWHR is dedicated to transforming women’s health through science, advocacy, and education. Founded in 1990 by a group of physicians, medical researchers and health advocates, SWHR aims to bring attention to the variety of diseases and conditions that disproportionately or predominately affect women. For more information, please visit www.swhr.org. Follow us on Twitter at @SWHR. SWHR is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Sexism in Science: Bias Beyond the Lab appeared first on Law Street.

We’ve all heard about the pay gap between men and women, but it seems that one specific statistic is used to illustrate this issue. Proponents of new equal pay laws claim that women make “77 cents for every dollar a man makes.” It’s a number that has been passed around for years by feminist groups, political organizations, and even many prominent politicians. Even President Obama used the “77 cents to a dollar” claim in his 2014 State of the Union address as an example of injustice against women.

Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.

-President Obama, 2014 State of the Union address

While that statistic is accurate, further analysis indicates that it may not be the best way to capture the issue at hand. The available evidence suggests that there is a notable wage gap, but that evidence also suggests that the cause of the gap is due to a wide range of factors, which must be taken into account when talking about wage disparities.

Where does this “77 cents” statistic come from and to what extent is wage discrimination a problem for women in the workforce?

The Statistics

You get the 77 cents claim when you take the median, full-time, year-round wage for men and compare it to that of women using data from the census. While accurate based on that calculation, it may also be misleading. The statistic does not take into consideration differences in skills, education level, relevant experience, benefits, hours worked, or even occupation. According to the Washington Post, comparing wages based on weekly earnings narrows the gap to 19 cents and when you look at hourly wages the gap is 14 cents, but those measures also have drawbacks.

The variance between different wage gap estimates generally comes from how these statistics are gathered. Each survey and calculation use different methodologies and it’s very difficult to determine objectively how and if discrimination plays a role in wage differences.

So what’s the pay difference when you take all these into consideration? What other factors may also cause this gap?

Causes:

Hours and Family Care

According to the Center for American Progress, women work on average 35 minutes per day fewer than men. While this most likely will not have an impact on employees who are salaried, that difference will have a notable effect on workers receiving an hourly wage.

According to a Harvard Business Review Study, 43 percent of women with children leave the workforce at some point. There are many reasons why women drop out of the workforce after having children–unpaid maternity leave causes many women to leave their jobs to raise their children due to high childcare costs and time constraints. The statistics also show that once women leave the workforce, many never return. Of those who stop working, only three-quarters of them will eventually start again, and less than half will resume full-time jobs. Because many women don’t return to work in the same capacity as they left, their wages and experience levels are typically lower once they re-enter. Available evidence suggests that having children disproportionately affects women’s careers relative to their husbands. BLS data shows that women who are not married have a much smaller wage gap–earning 95 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Education and Occupations

Men and women also choose different career paths, which often can result in large income differences. In 2013, Georgetown University conducted a survey on the average wage by college major. The study found that nine of the ten best-paying majors were mostly chosen by men:

1. Petroleum Engineering: 87 percent male
2. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48 percent male
3. Mathematics and Computer Science: 67 percent male
4. Aerospace Engineering: 88 percent male
5. Chemical Engineering: 72 percent male
6. Electrical Engineering: 89 percent male
7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97 percent male
8. Mechanical Engineering: 90 percent male
9. Metallurgical Engineering: 83 percent male
10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90 percent male

On the other hand, nine out of ten of the lowest paying majors were dominated by women:

1. Counseling Psychology: 74 percent female
2. Early Childhood Education: 97 percent female
3. Theology and Religious Vocations: 34 percent female
4. Human Services and Community Organization: 81 percent female
5. Social Work: 88 percent female
6. Drama and Theater Arts: 60 percent female
7. Studio Arts: 66 percent female
8. Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94 percent female
9. Visual and Performing Arts: 77 percent female
10. Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55 percent female

These numbers show that women generally prefer careers that help serve the community or require a level of artistic ability. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to enter a field that involves engineering and manufacturing development. This may be the biggest factor for wage differences, as a community organizer would not make the same as a biochemical engineer.

But why are so few women entering these higher paying, male dominated fields? A study by Indiana University Bloomington shows that many women who enter these “sex-segregated” fields experience high levels of stress due to “coworkers doubting their competence,” “low levels of support from coworkers,” and even sexual harassment. Instead of outright wage discrimination–where women are given less money than men for the same work–this study suggests that different biases push women into lower-paying fields.

Women also tend to prefer jobs that have greater benefits (paid maternity leave and more vacation time) even if the pay is lower. According to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, when benefits are included in a worker’s total compensation, the wage gap shrinks to 3.6 percent.

Overall Pay Difference

According to PolitiFact, when every factor is accounted for, the wage gap narrows to 93 to 95 cents per dollar. This does not indicate equal pay, but it also shows that 77 cent statistic can be overly simplistic. The evidence suggests that outright discrimination has decreased over the years, but it still exists and certain factors disproportionately affect women in the workforce. According to a survey by Glamour magazine, only 39 percent of women asked for a higher pay when starting a new job versus 54 percent of men.

But there is also a large chance that wage differences may be due to discrimination. For example, women may be denied raises or promotions over their male coworkers. According to a Gallup survey, 15 percent of women feel that they were wrongfully denied a promotion because of their gender.

There are other things to consider as well. Raising the tipped minimum wage would greatly benefit women as they make up 2/3 of tip workers. Pay transparency would allow women to discuss their pay with their co-workers, making it easier to identify pay discrimination. Paid and longer maternity leave would also encourage mothers to re-enter the workforce in stronger numbers.

Conclusion

It’s incredibly difficult to determine the exact size of the gender wage gap and the extent to which discrimination plays a role. Because each study uses different calculations, there are often significant disparities in gap estimates. But nearly all reliable and credible surveys do show there is some level of wage discrimination between men and women–whether it is 5 percent or 22 percent. Even if the gap is only one percent, that’s still an injustice.

Resources

Primary

Gallup: In U.S., 15 percent of Women Feel Unfairly Denied a Promotion

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: Gender Wage Gap May be Much Smaller than Most Think

Georgetown University: The Economic Value of College Majors

Additional

Wall Street Journal: Washington’s Equal Pay Obsession

ARI.org: February 20 is White House Equal Pay Day

Washington Examiner: The ’77 Cents for Every Dollar’ Lie

Washington Post: The White House’s Own Wage Gender Gap

 FactCheck.org: Playing Politics with the Pay Gap

Washington Post: President Obama’s Persistent ’77-cent’ Claim on the Wage Gap Gets a New Pinocchio Rating

Washington Post: The ‘Equal Pay Day’ Factoid that Women Make 78 Cents For Every Dollar Earned by Men

TechRepublic: TechRepublic has Just Published its 2010 IT Skills and Salary Report

 Center for American Progress: Explaining the Gender Wage Gap

The Atlantic: Why 43 percent of Women With Children Leave Their Jobs

Medical Daily: Women Working In Male-Dominated Jobs Experience Higher Levels Of Stress And Health Problems

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seventy-Seven Cents: The Statistics on Wage Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

Two incredible women made history when they passed the Army’s elite Ranger School last Friday. Rangers make up an exceptionally trained unit of the Army comparable to the Navy SEALs. The graduation re-sparked the national debate over the ability of women to take on combat roles. To be clear, today women are located on the front-line, but some positions are still off-limits. Critics call the practice unfair and sexist while supporters dismiss those labels entirely. Is the current system in place justifiable? Or should women be given the opportunity to fill any position?

In Today’s News

Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver are the first female soldiers to graduate Ranger School–one of the most grueling training courses that the Army has to offer. The Pentagon describes Ranger School as “the Army’s premier combat leadership course, teaching Ranger students how to overcome fatigue, hunger, and stress to lead Soldiers during small unit combat operations.”

Army Rangers are trained to lead soldiers on difficult combat-related missions. They are specifically trained for close combat and direct-fire battles. Candidates must pass three phases of Ranger School: Crawl, Walk, and Run. The Crawl phase, lasting 20 days, focuses on physical and mental development. The Walk phase, lasting 21 days, is conducted in the mountains and focuses on military mountaineering tasks. And the Run phase further develops combat-arms functional skills under extremely stressful environments.

When the class began in April, there were 381 men and 19 women. The class finished, 62 days later, down to 94 men and two women. Each graduate had to pass a physical fitness test that requires:

Forty-nine pushups, 59 situps, a 5-mile run in 40 minutes, six chin-ups, a swim test, a land navigation test, a 12-mile foot march in three hours, several obstacle courses, four days of military mountaineering, three parachute jumps, four air assaults on helicopters and 27 days of mock combat patrols.

On a trial basis, this was the first year that the Army allowed women to participate in Ranger School. Although they could train, Capt. Griest and Lt. Haver still cannot apply to the 75^th Ranger Regiment with their fellow classmates. A follow-up decision on the specific roles that women can have in combat is expected by the end of the year. In 2013, the U.S. Military officially lifted the 1994 ban on women in combat roles. In addition, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta initiated a three-year project in 2012 calling for all branches to fully integrate women in combat roles by 2016, or request a special exception.

Statistics

Despite the ban for certain combat roles, women served on the war front in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women can hold jobs on gun crews, air crews, and in seamanship specialties. U.S. military women accounted for 67 combat deaths in Iraq and 33 in Afghanistan; those wars also saw more than 600 and 300 female injuries, respectively. Two military women were held prisoner in Desert Storm and three in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Regardless of the post, women are integral to the U.S. military. According to statistics from 2011, more than 200,000 women served in active military duty, including 69 generals and admirals. Women account for 14.5 percent of the military’s active armed forces. There are 74,000 women in the Army, 53,000 in the Navy, 62,000 in the Air Force and 14,000 in the Marine Corps. Women account for 10.5 percent of the Coast Guard as well.

Women are represented in leadership positions as well. Women make up roughly 14 percent of the enlisted ranks and 16.6 percent of the officer corps. More than seven percent of all generals and admirals are women–with 28 generals in the Air Force, 19 in the Army, one in the Marine Corps, and 21 admirals in the Navy. Nearly 20 percent of female enlisted reservists and National Guard officers are women. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, there were 1,853,690 female veterans in the United States as of September 2011.

Arguments against Full Female Integration

Strength

The main argument against expanding the role of women to new combat positions focuses on their physical capabilities. Many critics argue that their opinions have nothing to do with sexism and that they have the fullest respect for women in the armed forces. But when it comes down to it, women are not as strong as men. Male muscles and bones are denser. Critics argue that the endangerment of team members isn’t worth the military being politically correct. As Brig. Gen. George Smith explained on “60 Minutes,” “The realities of combat aren’t going to change based on gender.”

In 2012, the Marine Corps opened its Infantry Officer Course to women on a trial basis, which is similar to the Ranger training. While 29 women have attempted the course, none have passed so far. Only four women passed the combat endurance test held on the first day. This includes, for example, a 25-foot rope climb with a heavy backpack full of gear. You must reach the top to pass. An imbalance in strength allows for differences between men and women in the Marine Corps basic physical fitness test. For example, a woman can perform fewer pull-ups than her male counterpart. Today 45 percent of female Marines can complete three pull-ups, the requirement for male testing.

Standards

The standards are high, and that is yet another argument against full integration. If you lower the standards to allow women to pass, you elevate the risk in the field. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, started to question these high standards two years ago. He claimed,

If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?

In other words, the Marine Corps Officer Course, along with other courses of similar intensity, will now have to justify current standards. However, there are those that don’t accept that argument. Retired Marine Corps Officer Dakota Wood believes they have “decades of experience on which to base requirements.”

Medical Concerns

Women have time and time again proved their worth on the front-line. They have exhibited poise and efficiency under fire. A main concern, however, is longevity. Capt. Katie Petronio, a former combat engineer officer on deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, returned from deployment with new concerns about women in combat zones. She asks,

Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?…Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the -specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

With a similar viewpoint, Retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff links the ban on women in combat roles to women in the NFL. She told Business Insider:

There’s simply too great a disparity in body mass and strength between NFL players and women, and the physical demands are too great… Currently, women have higher rates of discharge for medical disability that prevents them from finishing their enlistment, or re-enlistment. Stress and muscular deterioration in women come on faster and harder due to the heavy gear and physical duress in the field environment.

Put simply, physical deterioration ultimately occurs more in woman than it does in men.

Arguments for Full Female Integration

When it comes to strength and standards, the counterargument seems obvious: keep the standards universal. If you don’t lower the standards and keep everything even for men and women, then that should silence critics at least against the physical arguments. Keeping standards high will remove sex from the equation.

Even though no women have passed the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course, 150 women did graduate from the Marine Corps Infantry Training Battalion Course at the School of Infantry in North Carolina. These women passed with the same standards as the men. Marine Corps Spokeswoman, Capt. Maureen Krebs explained that even though basic physical fitness tests may allow different expectations, they are “separate from standards that must be met for a particular occupation, such as infantry, where women must achieve the same as men.” In other words, everyone meets the same standards to graduate.

Although a woman hasn’t yet passed the Officer Course, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. Allowing women to perform any combat role doesn’t provide a free pass. A woman will have to earn it like any male counterpart. That could still mean zero female Marine Corps Officers, for example, but at least they get a shot at it. As for medial concerns, extra pre-training for muscle building can be required to reduce female injury rates.

Conclusion

The two women who graduated from Ranger School certainly reignited the debate, but it’s been a controversial conversation that has existed for years. Both sides have sticking points to their arguments, but there is a resolution in sight. The Pentagon will release a final statement settling the issue after careful analysis of the research, perhaps solving the question once and for all.

 Resources

Primary

Pew Research Center: Women in the Military

USArmy: Ranger School

Additional

Business Insider: There’s A Big Unknown About Putting The Female Body In Combat

CNN: History in the Making

The Washington Times: Pressure Grows on Marines to Consider Lowering Combat Standards for Women

The Guardian: Women in Combat

Marine Times: Need to Know, 2015

SistersinArms: Women in Combat Pros and Cons

StatisticBrain: Women in the Military Statistics

CNN: By the Numbers

The Washington Post: Women now 0 for 29 in attempting Marine Infantry Officer Course

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Women in Combat Debate Continued: Should Every Door be Opened? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

NCAA and Title IX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what about the pros?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So when will women be in the dominant pro leagues?

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

Resources

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

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

LexisNexis Legal Newsroom: Gender Participation Issues Related to Sports

NCAA: Title IX Frequently Asked Questions

AthNet: Title IX and Its Effects on Intercollegiate Athletics

ESPN W: Five Myths about Title IX

Women’s Sports Foundation: Title IX Myths and Facts

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

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

NFL: Women Will Compete at Regional Combine For First Time

Weekly World News: NFL to Allow Women to Play

Jennifer Polish

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

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

Since 1981, the number of children of incarcerated parents has increased by an extremely dramatic 80 percent. Along with the more than 50 percent increase in the number of incarcerated women–75 percent of whom are mothers–well over half of all adults incarcerated in state and federal prisons today have at least one child under the age of 18.

Though the numbers are grim, they are far from the whole story. How does mass incarceration affect children of incarcerated parents, and how have these children come together to advocate for their needs?

Consequences of Parental Incarceration for Children

Having a parent in prison can have an impact on a child’s mental health, social behavior, and educational prospects. The emotional trauma that may occur and the practical difficulties of a disrupted family life can be compounded by the social stigma that children may face as a result of having a parent in prison or jail. Children who have an incarcerated parent may experience financial hardship that results from the loss of that parent’s income. Further, some incarcerated parents face termination of parental rights because their children have been in the foster care system beyond the time allowed by law.

Unlike children of the deceased or divorced who tend to benefit from society’s familiarity with and acceptance of their loss, children of the incarcerated too often grow up and grieve under a cloud of low expectations and amidst a swirling set of assumptions that they will fail, that they will themselves resort to a life of crime or that they too will succumb to a life of drug addiction.

Children Fighting Back

1. I have the right to be kept safe and informed at the time of my parent’s arrest.
2. I have the right to be heard when decision are made about me.
3. I have the right to be considered when decisions are made about my parent.
4. I have the right to be well cared for in my parent’s absence.
5. I have the right to speak with, see, and touch my parent.
6. I have the right to support as I struggle with my parent’s incarceration.
7. I have the right not to be judged, blamed, or labeled because of my parent’s incarceration.
8. I have the right to a lifelong relationship with my parent.

1. I have the right to be kept safe and informed at the time of my parent’s arrest: (1) Develop arrest protocols that support and protect children; (2) Offer children and/or their caregivers basic information about the post-arrest process.
2. I have the right to be heard when decisions are made about me: (1) Train staff at institutions whose constituency includes children of incarcerated parents to recognize and address these children’s needs and concerns; (2) Tell the truth; (3) Listen.
3. I have the right to be considered when decisions are made about my parent: (1) Review current sentencing law in terms of its impact on children and families; (2) Turn arrest into an opportunity for family preservation; (3) Include a family impact statement in pre-sentence investigation reports.
4. I have the right to be well cared for in my parent’s absence: (1) Support children by supporting their caretakers; (2) Offer subsidized guardianship.
5. I have the right to speak with, see, and touch my parent: (1) Provide access to visiting rooms that are child-centered, non-intimidating, and conducive to bonding; (2) Consider proximity to family when siting prisons and assigning prisoners; (3) Encourage child welfare departments to facilitate contact.
6. I have the right to support as I face my parent’s incarceration: (1) Train adults who work with young people to recognize the needs and concerns of children whose parents are incarcerated; (2) Provide access to specially trained therapists, counselors, and/or mentors; (3) Save five percent for families.
7. I have the right not to be judged, blamed, or labeled because my parent is incarcerated: (1) Create opportunities for children of incarcerated parents to communicate with and support each other; (2) Create a truth fit to tell; (3) Consider differential response when a parent is arrested.
8. I have the right to a lifelong relationship with my parent: (1) Re-examine the Adoption and Safe Families Act; (2) Designate a family services coordinator at prisons and jails; (3) Support incarcerated parents upon reentry; (4) Focus on rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration.

Led by youth who have had a parent incarcerated, Project WHAT! raises awareness about children with incarcerated parents with the long-term goal of improving services and policies that affect these children.  WHAT! stands for We’re Here And Talking, which is exactly what the team is doing. Over seven million children have a parent on parole, probation, or incarcerated. The program employs young people who have experienced parental incarceration as the primary curriculum content developers and facilitators for trainings.

By directly employing youth in their advocacy efforts, Project WHAT! utilizes both long-term advocacy and direct-action strategies. By striving toward long-term goals–like the ones described above–while offering short-term assistance–immediately empowering youth and children through both their programming and their paid employment opportunities–Project WHAT! is a prime example of youth-led organizing across the country. Indeed, children of incarcerated parents in Michigan have also organized to open their own chapters of Project WHAT!.

So where are we now?

Children of incarcerated parents are uniquely impacted by the criminal justice system, even when they are not, themselves, incarcerated. From emotional and psychological trauma, to increased poverty, to being separated permanently from their parents without parent or child’s consent, mass incarceration devastates many of the children whose parents are incarcerated. However, coalitions of children like Project WHAT! are working to ensure that their needs are met, even if the criminal justice system is not interested in meeting them.

Resources

Osborne Association: Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Bill of Rights

Rhonda L. Rosenthal, PC: Severing the Parental Rights of Inmates

California Watch: Number of Children With Parent in Prison Growing

IndiGoGo: Project WHAT! Building a Youth-Led Movement for Prison Reform in Michigan

Community Works: Project WHAT!

San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents: From Rights to Realities

Reporting on Health: Children Who Witness Parent’s Immigration Arrest May Suffer Lifetime Health Consequences

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Children of Incarcerated Parents Fact Sheet

Youth.gov: Children of Incarcerated Parents

Justice Strategies: Children on the Outside: Voicing the Pain and Human Costs of Parental Incarceration

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: The Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children

Jennifer Polish

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

The post Children of Incarcerated Parents: What Are Their Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

I know, I know. I shouldn’t be so gleeful that so many lesbians were OUT and about (see what I did there?) at the World Cup this year.

No, you don’t need to be super masculine to be amazing at sports. And no, you don’t need to be super masculine to be a lesbian (and yes, you can be super masculine and also somehow not be a lesbian). So no, I don’t want to celebrate just how much lesbiosity there was at this year’s World Cup because I don’t want to perpetuate this idea that masculinity = sports and masculinity = male, so male = sports, and if women are amazing at sports, then women must be masculine and must be lesbians (follow all that?!).

None of that is true. I know.

BUT I AM STILL SO HAPPY ABOUT THIS.

By this, of course, I mean the international platform that the World Cup has become for out lesbian players to advocate for genuine queer inclusion in professional sports.

I also mean–and I giggle gleefully each time I think about it or watch the video (now you can, too: scroll down!!)–Abby Wambach jogging over to the sidelines after winning the World Cup Sunday night and kissing her wife, Sarah Huffman.

But I’m still sad about it. I’m sad that it’s such a big deal.

To describe what I mean, I–the English PhD student and aspiring novelist–am going to have to turn to Tumblr (at least I don’t take myself too seriously, right?). Because really, carmillastakesmyheart hashtagged this post perfectly: When “Just Straight Things # 18” was deemed by the delightful and sadly accurate JustStraightThings blog to be “donating blood” (because we queers aren’t allowed to due to queerphobic and medically meaningless FDA regulations), carmillastakesmyheart reblogged the post with the hashtags #thismademelaugh and #thenmademereallysad (see below).

Which is exactly how I feel about the sensation that has become of Wambach and Huffman’s “Kiss Seen ‘Round the World.” Because it is not (just) an emblem of queer “progress”–the overwhelmingly supportive media response to it is an indication of how far we still need to go.

Because some media couldn’t even be bothered to acknowledge that Sarah is her wife.

The homophobia via erasing queerness doesn’t surprise me.

So yes, the kiss makes me laugh with happiness.

But then it makes me sad. Because it’s a big deal. It’s a huge, sensational, enormous deal.

And it really shouldn’t be at all.

Jennifer Polish

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

The post Bittersweet Lesbian Kisses at the World Cup appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer Polish

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

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

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

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

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

 Say goodbye to college debt with #TheBern.

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

Disposable income FTW.

3. #CivilRightsBern: He marched with MLK.

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

If only The Bern could still move like this…

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

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

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

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

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

Get ready for your new favorite holiday.

6. #FlowerBern: Bernie loves the environment.

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

Peace, Love, and Bernie Sanders for President.

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

No further commentary needed.

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

GOP better take its money and run.

9. #EqualityBern: He’s a feminist.

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

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

10. #TheRealBern: He released a folk album.

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

He’s a cool Mayor.

Feel the Bern in 2016…

And move it like Bernie to the Democratic Primaries…

So we can #BernTheHouseDown.

Jennie Burger also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

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

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

As mass incarceration and state violence vis a vis police brutality are coming increasingly under fire, even in mainstream media, many communities are turning toward alternative methods of addressing violence. Transformative justice–as opposed to criminal justice–seeks to create alternatives to incarceration in a similar manner to its less-radical cousin, restorative justice. But transformative justice does something else, as well: transformative practices encourage communities to avoid involving police in crimes, even in instances of violence.

How can community practices of transformative justice transform the larger criminal justice system? Can community-based methods of addressing violence be the key to transforming this society?

What is Transformative Justice?

According to Generation Five, an organization dedicated to transformative justice in cases of gender-based violence, especially child abuse, transformative justice is described as the following:

Transformative justice [is] a liberatory approach to violence…[which] seeks safety and accountability without relying on alienation, punishment, or State or systemic violence, including incarceration or policing.

Three core beliefs:

Individual justice and collective liberation are equally important, mutually supportive, and fundamentally intertwined—the achievement of one is impossible without the achievement of the other.

The conditions that allow violence to occur must be transformed in order to achieve justice in individual instances of violence. Therefore, Transformative Justice is both a liberating politic and an approach for securing justice.

State and systemic responses to violence, including the criminal legal system and child welfare agencies, not only fail to advance individual and collective justice but also condone and perpetuate cycles of violence.”

Because of these core beliefs, rather than seeking to integrate transformative practices into the current criminal justice system, transformative justice practitioners actively advocate for remaining outside of state intervention.

Transformative Justice is a response to the State’s inability to provide justice on either individual or collective levels. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a model that responds to experiences of violence without relying on current State systems. We believe this to be a liberating politic that creates opportunities for healing and transformation rather than retribution and punishment. Transformative Justice moves us toward equity and liberation rather than maintaining the inequality that the current State and systems maintain.

Transformative justice practitioners argue that there is a choice, however: by equipping communities to engage in transformative practices instead of resorting to the only option often presented to people–involving the police in cases of violence–harm can actually be repaired and further harm can actually be prevented.

Can Transformative Practices Achieve Justice?

While many people across the country increasingly accept alternatives to incarceration for youth who are convicted of minor, nonviolent offenses–indeed, restorative practices dealing with those kinds of cases are becoming more common–many are skeptical about transformative justice advocates’ claims that alternatives to incarceration should also be used in cases as grave as rape and child abuse.

But does anyone actually practice transformative justice?

In one example of transformative justice principles being used in an effort to keep targeted communities safe without resorting to state intervention, the Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn queer of color youth collective Safe OUTside the System launched a campaign in 2007 in line with transformative justice principles and practices:

In 2007, the collective launched the Safe Neighborhood Campaign. Similar to the Dorchester Green Light Program of the 1970s, the campaign provides safe havens from sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and racist language, behaviour, and violence of all sorts. The campaign has three phases. In the first, neighbourhood public spaces such as restaurants, schools, churches, and businesses agree to visibly identify themselves as safe havens for those threatened with or fleeing from violence. In the second phase, the campaign incorporates an educational component to address some of the causes of anti-gay and anti-trans violence. Members of the campaign train the owners and employees… [on] ways to prevent violent without relying on law enforcement. In the third phase, Safe Space advocates recruit other community members and public figures into the campaign.

In ways that are formal–like these Safe OUTside the System’s effort–and informal, strategies of transformative justice are providing alternatives to the criminal justice system across the country.

Transforming criminal justice?

While transformative justice can be criticized for not offering a structured, consistent approach to providing alternatives to policing, transformative justice advocates continue to emphasize the importance of promoting truly individual and community-based alternatives–which vary with each circumstance–rather than attempting to dictate what is best for different communities. This is because ultimately, the priority of transformative justice advocates is not to transform the criminal justice system, but rather to work outside of it until it can be dismantled and rebuilt in a transformative way that does not continue to target already marginalized peoples.

Resources

Generation Five: Transformative Justice

Generation Five: Toward Transformative Justice

Huffington Post: Seeking Transformative Justice in Ferguson, Dearborn, and Beyond

Huffington Post: Criminalizing Victims: How the Punishment Economy Failed Marissa Alexander

Philly Stands Up!: Transformative Justice Anti-Sexual Assault Action Camp!

US Prison Culture: Thoughts About Community Support Around Intimate Violence

Safe OUTSide the System: The SOS Collective

Jennifer Polish

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

The post Transformative Justice Transforming Mass Incarceration? appeared first on Law Street.

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

But the whole 77 cent thing? Not actually true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer Polish

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

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

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

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

And yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer Polish

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

Morgan McMurray

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

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

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

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

Obviously.

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

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

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

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

— Tom Freeman (@SnoozeInBrief) January 17, 2015

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

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

All together now.

UGGHHH.

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Teespring.com.

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

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

— Evan Conway (@evandotconway) January 15, 2015

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

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

— Paige (@tubapay) January 16, 2015

So much power, so little justice.

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

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

— Emily ReyNOlds (@rey_z) January 19, 2015

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

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

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

— Inglourious Beanpole (@ladyepicenter) January 17, 2015

You folks are heroes.

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

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

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

Got that?

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

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

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

To those Meninists, I say, UNTRUE.

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

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

Why are all of these things happening?

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

These are the problems that are officially on the books.

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

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

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

You’re missing the point.

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

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

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

Hannah R. Winsten

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

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

Folks, the New Year is upon us.

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

Fuck yeah I am.

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

Resolution making.

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

1. Don’t lose weight.

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

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

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

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

2. Learn to be a better ally.

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

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

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

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

3. Follow your passion.

What makes you as happy as this panda bear?

Resolve to do more of it.

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

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

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

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

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

4. Practice better self-care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Let things go.

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

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

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

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

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

Hannah R. Winsten

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

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

Hey there folks! Are you pumped for tomorrow?

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

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

And the answer is threefold.

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

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

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

This is obviously the best way to do that.

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

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

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

Courtesy of Brandsonsale.com.

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

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

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

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

2.) Don’t wear blackface.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AKA, not a costume.

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

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

 4.) Don’t be a slut-shamer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And by that I mean, party your asses off.

Hannah R. Winsten

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah I am.

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

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

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

This is a place for men.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She did.

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

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

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

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

The response?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hannah R. Winsten

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

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

Millennial women have made a name for themselves in this century. We are strong-willed, motivated, and persistent. We are self-sufficient and independent. We have access to tools and knowledge our predecessors did not. Yet some Millennials are not taking advantage of these tools because they are simply unaware of their existence.

Let’s take the internet for example. We have access to the World Wide Web and all it has to offer through countless devices — computers, smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, etc. Plenty of websites cater to Millennial women for professional networking tips. These sites are essential for motivated young women who are entering the workforce. At any moment, I can ask Siri what to wear to my interview tomorrow, visit countless websites for coding tips, or search for internship opportunities. Each of these options is literally at the tips of my fingers. Here are some great websites for Millennial women to check out:

Let’s Learn

Girls Who Code’s mission is to provide one million young women with exposure to computer science education. According to FORBES, Girls Who Code hosts events, clubs, and other activities for girls, sometimes even for those still in high school.

Lynda.com provides online video tutorials to help learn “software, creative, and business skills.” Joining is free and provides members with unlimited access to nearly three thousand courses and mobile access.

General Assembly offers courses in a variety of areas from web development to digital marketing. Members are able to attend events with the GA community or simply live-stream from home. GA helps Millennials across the world improve their businesses through various workshops, classes, and events.

Professional Development and Networking

ED2010 helps aspiring editors reach their desired status faster. The site functions as a networking hub, educational resource, and advice column for all aspiring publications professionals.

Intern Sushi is designed for college students to find internships that would be most valuable to them. Intern Sushi is focused on more creative professions, thus encouraging its users to ditch the traditional resume application and replace it with more creative styles like video and graphic visualizations.

Her Agenda is a goldmine for young professional women seeking advancement on their career paths. The site provides information and encouragement through posting events, scholarships, conferences, and internship and job opportunities.

Generation Meh targets young professionals who dislike the idea of a conventional 9 to 5. The site publishes personal and professional tips, tricks, and life hacks. This site is manned by Forbes Woman contributor J. Maureen Henderson.

Advice Columns and Discussion Boards

20-Nothings has collected “anecdotes, advice, and musings on everything from dating to body image.” The site functions as a motivational entertainment source for young women in their 20s and 30s.

HerCampus is most useful for female college students. The site features sections such as style, beauty, campus, career, health, and more. HerCampus has representatives on more than 200 campuses across the country.

The Everygirl is perfect for Millennial women looking for advice on their next vacation destination, beauty tips, and career. This site also takes on a serious tone discussing culture, politics, and finance. It’s basically a powerhouse of knowledge for all young women.

Fashionista Fun

Rookie Mag supplies fashion tips on the go. This site was started by a 17-year-old fashion blogger in 2011. Celebrities make contributions to the publication focused on modern teenage life.

The Classy Cubicle provides all professional fashionistas with the latest trends. Not sure what to wear to an interview at a creative office? They’ve got your back. The Classy Cubicle covers different “categories” of office types and suggests appropriate attire for each one.

Despite the abundance of negative comments and startling information the internet supplies, there is a huge community of support, especially for young women. Aspiring young professionals have countless resources to further their educations, careers, and personal development on the internet. These websites not only share useful professional advice but also support and humor for women of all ages. I encourage all young professionals, working women, and Capitalistas to check out some of these sites, they could change your career path.

Make sure to follow The Capitalista on Twitter at @CapitalistaBlog and on Tumblr at thecapitalista.tumblr.com for more tips, tricks, and suggestions to find your dream internships and jobs!

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@NatashaPaulmeno) is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends.

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Most Useful Career Sites for Millennial Women appeared first on Law Street.

You guys, I’m getting really fed up with the GOP.

This week, Senate Republicans voted unanimously to block the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill aimed at closing the gender wage gap.

It would have encouraged salary transparency among employees, protected workers who share salary information with one another, imposed more serious penalties for pay discrimination, and required employers to prove that any existing wage gaps are in place for reasons other than gender.

Basically, the Paycheck Fairness Act is exactly what it sounds like — a bill that seeks fair paychecks for everyone, regardless of gender.

You’d think that’d be a pretty standard, reasonable goal: pay everyone fairly based on the work that they do, not on the genitals they have! Easy enough, right? Well, apparently not. Because this is the fourth time that Republicans have blocked it.

It’s a pretty counter-intuitive move, considering that just a few weeks ago, the Republican National Committee claimed that, “All Republicans support equal pay.” It appears that these Senate Republicans are voting against the official party line.

This #LaborDay, the White House & Democrats believe paying women less than men is an acceptable practice. pic.twitter.com/AhCYH5RGgR

— RNC (@GOP) September 1, 2014

Not to mention, earlier this month, Politico leaked that the GOP was sorely lacking in support from single women, and would be targeting the Beyoncé-voters’ bloc come election season. Senate Republicans didn’t seem to get that memo, since their actions this week are only further alienating the key voting demographic they need to win over.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a direct response to the realities of gender discrimination in the workplace — women earn an average of 77 cents to a man’s dollar. That statistic hasn’t changed in a decade. And while it’s true that it’s a fairly complex number, determined by a variety of factors, it’s still very real that the average female worker earns less than her male counterparts.

And Republicans are voting to keep it that way.

Women are paid less than men from the minute they enter the workforce right through to the moment they get promoted to the executive corner office. There are a ton of factors that go into the wage gap — industry, tenure, marital status, and education level, just to name a few — but women are getting paid less no matter which of these variables get thrown into the mix.

Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act would send a clear message that the federal government cares about women in the workforce. This bill would not only take real steps toward closing the pay gap between men and women, it would also communicate that female workers are valued. The way they’re treated, and how much they’re paid, matters.

But Republicans are voting to hang on to current practices, like salary secrecy, that work to keep women’s paychecks smaller and their professional contributions undervalued. Why? According to the Senators, they worry that the bill would cause employers to stop hiring female employees, fearful of discrimination lawsuits. They’ve also argued that the wage gap is exaggerated and that women are already protected from discrimination enough.

So basically, the Republican Senators who blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act on Monday night are sending a number of shitbag messages:

They’re dismissing the very real problem of pay discrimination, invalidating the experiences of women who are forced to support themselves on inadequate wages simply because they have vaginas.

They’re telling the world that women are not valuable workers, and that it’s perfectly acceptable for women to work just as hard as — if not harder than — their male counterparts, and get paid less.

They’re upholding a hostile, sexist culture in which, apparently, if employers are expected to treat their female workers in a non-discriminatory manner, they simply won’t hire female workers at all.

And finally, they’re sending a crystal clear message to women across the nation that the GOP does not take our priorities seriously. Instead, they’ll tell us our problems don’t exist, our concerns are invalid and unnecessary, and then vote in favor of policies that harm us.

The RNC’s Twitter account claims to be in support of equal pay for women, but actions speak louder than words.

You’re not fooling anyone, conserva-turds.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of  [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post The GOP Blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act AGAIN appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, folks! We’ve finally made it through the week. Phew! It’s been a long one, am I right?

Unfortunately, women in Missouri aren’t feeling much relief today. Legislators in the Midwestern state enacted a bill on Wednesday that mandates a 72-hour waiting period for any woman seeking an abortion. There are no exceptions to this rule, even in cases of rape or incest.

So, unless you are about to literally die as a result of a pregnancy gone terribly wrong, if you want an abortion in Missouri, you’ll have to wait it out through a mandatory, three-day “reflection period.” The bill becomes effective in 30 days.

Folks, this bill is extremely problematic for a bunch of reasons.

First, there are the practical ones. Requiring a standard medical procedure to span over a number of days places a real logistical burden on women seeking abortions. Since there’s only one abortion clinic left in the state, accessing abortion services is already super difficult. Many have to travel long distances to reach this single, lonely clinic — a trip that requires a steep financial investment of gas money, wear and tear on your car, and probably a day off from work.

And that’s all before you can even get the actual abortion, which will cost you money, since a number of restrictions on Obamacare and public employee coverage mean it’s pretty unlikely that your insurance will pay for it.

Now, multiply all that hassle by three. Thanks to this bill, not only do Missouri women have to go through all this mess, they also have to take multiple days off from work and book a hotel room.

Oh! And to top off this logistical disaster, that three-day waiting period? You have to go through counseling sessions before it can even begin. They’re specifically designed to misinform women about abortions, and are meant to discourage patients from going through with the procedure — so add another day to that hotel bill, ladies.

The problems with this bill don’t stop there, however. Aside from the practical issues it will cause Missouri women looking to access safe abortion services, it also wreaks a certain level of psychic havoc.

Forcing women to undergo a reflection period to reflect upon a decision they’ve already thought about and made is incredibly condescending, demeaning, and paternalistic. If you’ve traveled 100 miles to get this procedure done — the average distance a patient at St. Louis’ Planned Parenthood will travel to receive an abortion — you’ve already made your decision.

You’ve thought this through.

Abortion isn’t a decision to be taken lightly, and guess who knows that better than anyone else? WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING ABORTIONS.

Imagine these women were seeking different kinds of medical procedures. A cystectomy, for example, or a colonoscopy. How absurd would it be for someone — aside from her doctor — to step in and tell her to hold on, she’d better think this through?

It would be ridiculous. But the Republican lawmakers of Missouri have decided not to treat abortions like what they are — standard medical procedures — and instead, to separate them out into a special circumstance where women cease to be independent, intelligent adults, capable of making their own decisions. Apparently, when abortions are on the table, the women of Missouri are to be treated like ignorant, irresponsible children.

Now, it’s important to note that this bill didn’t pass easily. When it was introduced earlier this year, Democrats and women’s rights activists protested it, and Governor Jay Nixon even vetoed it. But this week, Republican legislators voted to override the veto, then cut off a Democratic filibuster to force a new vote.

In other words, Missouri Republicans really, REALLY care about forcing women who need abortions to undergo 72 hours of physical, mental, and financial hardship before they’ll be allowed to receive medical care.

Why, exactly, is the GOP so concerned about women’s reproductive systems? The past few years have been filled to the brim with cases of Republican lawmakers restricting women’s access to safe, affordable birth control and abortion services.

New research points to the idea that conservatives believe that women simply shouldn’t be having consequence-free sex. A recent study that surveyed Americans on their views about promiscuity found that people who think casual sex is wrong, also believe that women need a man to financially support them.

So, basically, a woman who’s totally independent, both financially and sexually, is a really foreign and potentially threatening concept to many conservative folks. As a result, they’re trying to reign in our ability to have consequence-free sex — which any man can do, by the way, with a quick stop at a local convenience store.

And in Missouri, they’re doing a damn good job.

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post If You Need an Abortion in Missouri, Your Life Just Got Harder appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

This is going to be a fun one!

Some of y’all know a while ago I was writing a personal blog, stumbled across Law Street, and was fired up by one of the contributors, Hannah Winsten. I wrote a rebuttal and the rest is history. I’ve been writing for Law Street for a few months now and have had the greatest pleasure in doing so, the team rocks! But in the back of my mind I always wondered when I would be able to have another encounter with Hannah. I like to think of her as the antithesis of me, she stands for everything that I don’t believe in, but in a good way!

The day has finally come. Ladies and gentlemen, Hannah is back and she has fired me up!

Hannah wrote a piece this week entitled, “LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D” and I thought this will be a fun one. Boy was I right! I love how she starts right off with a sarcastic tone, throwing in those traditional pop culture references before pulling out the big words like ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic’ and ‘Republican.’

First, she certainly did get it right that President Obama is getting close to being a lame duck, actually at this point he’s checked out and moved on to retirement on the golf course while still in the White House. Things haven’t gone the way he planned and homeboy has chunked deuce on the country, as pointed out by fellow Law Street writer Katherine Fabian here.

Who isn’t ready for the 2016 elections? I know I am!

Here we go again with Hannah only selecting bits and pieces of a report, only outlining what is beneficial and relevant to how she thinks and not the whole story. Yes, Politico reported a survey that states 49 percent of single women hold a negative view of the Republican Party, but it also says that 39 percent view Democrats unfavorably. If you go deeper into the article you also see that 48 percent of married women prefer a Republican to a Democrat. It isn’t a very positive article for Republicans but at least it is the truth and they are trying to do something about it.

Yes, the Republican Party has been perceived as the “good ole boys” party and women were neglected in some respects. But there are still plenty of Republican women in the country and I’m sorry but the idea that Republicans support rape and domestic violence is just vile. Does Hannah see all Republicans as toothless, alcoholic, wife-beating-if-they-step-out-of-the-kitchen inbreds? Referring to conservatives as ‘conserva-turds’ is almost as ridiculous as your girl, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, making the comment that “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.” Maybe you and Debbie get together in the last few days and brainstormed creative ways of calling the Republican Party abusive? Even people in the Democratic Party are distancing themselves from that foolish woman and her hideous remarks.

Nowhere in any Republican initiative or in that specific poll does it say that Republicans are planning to tell anyone that they are wrong. Nowhere. The report says that it is a “lack of understanding” between women and Republicans that “closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.” But let’s be honest, we don’t need a poll to tell us that there is a lack of understanding between the American people and politics. Not many in my generation or in younger generations take the time to understand politics, they just go with what they hear on television and we both know that is not an accurate depiction of politics at its core.

Hannah claims that Republicans will basically shake their fingers at all women, tell them they are wrong, and expect them to go out and vote for the GOP. What exactly are you reading that says any of that? Oh right, it is all based on opinion, not fact. Let’s go back to the Politico article where it states that the group that took the poll suggests “Republicans deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, and then move to other issues.” Again, the report suggests this for Republicans. On the upside, there have been several Republicans who have come out in support of over-the-counter birth control, and many conservatives in general are Pro-Choice. Yes, Republicans should deal with the abortion topic with real facts, solutions, ideas, and then move on. Unlike Democrats who are still ignoring the facts of the IRS scandal, the Benghazi issue, ISIS, and most importantly Obamacare.

R.R. Reno made valid points in his opinion piece on the dilemma facing social conservatives, but my dear Hannah took what she wanted and neglected the rest. She assumes that this piece is to attack single women, assuming that they live with 12 cats and are terrified that they will end up alone so they recognize the strengths of getting a hand out when they are older and thus support the Democratic Party. What Reno was doing was quoting a statistic about marriage and vulnerability and then putting his two cents in on why McKinsey, a fictional character, may feel judged when someone “opposes gay marriage, because she intuitively senses that being pro-traditional marriage involves asserting male-female marriage as the norm — and therefore that her life isn’t on the right path.”

That is a valid argument and a valid way of thinking. I know that I was raised to believe that the order of life is to graduate high school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids all under the age of 30. Guess what? I’m 29, I have two degrees (working on a third), and two jobs, but I am not married or have kids and it is a scary idea sometimes. Our parents’ traditional ways were engraved in our minds as young children, but the path our parents and older generations took is not what our generation wants to take. It will take time, but not everyone feels supported in their ventures because we aren’t doing what we were “supposed” to do. I’m glad I messed up and took a different path. I’m a better person for it. Reno was simply putting those ideals in a simple statement and showing that McKinsey chose to reject the norm so that she could feel accepted in her choices, and nothing is wrong with that.

I hate to break it to you, Hannah, but if you think women are voting Democrat because they “want to have control over their own bodies, their own reproductive systems, and their own lives. They want to be able to support ourselves. They want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence,” then you should probably vote for the unrepresented party. Democrats are taking away more of your rights than Republicans. Remember that tiny thing called Obamacare? Yeah, do some research and you will find there are more restrictions than advantages. You want to live your own life without someone dictating what you can and can’t do? Should probably take another look at the Democratic Party and its belief in big government, controlling every aspect of our lives and making people believe that they are entitled to handouts instead of working hard for what they have in life. Democrats would rather rich people do the work and hand the benefits to the less fortunate and lazy. Democrats believe in helping everyone but also in accruing more debt — that doesn’t help the economy, it hurts it.

At least Republicans are trying to fix their issues, listen to the people, and change (slowly) with the times more so than Democrats. Not to mention they are taking responsibility for their errors.

If you think Hillary is going to be in the White House in 2016 you’ve got another thing coming. The same “what difference does it make?” Hillary who was so flustered and frustrated about being questioned on the topic of Benghazi that she lost her cool? The same Hillary Clinton who admitted to leaving the White House with her husband President Bill Clinton, personally $10 million in debt? I’m not sure that is someone I would want in the oval office. Let’s be truly honest. We all know that while President Clinton was busy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office Hillary was really running the country. So she’s been president, just behind the scenes, and we don’t need her again.

I’ve said this before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the moment that opinion turns into something disrespectful I have an issue with it. The holier than thou, self-righteous, talking down to anyone who doesn’t agree with you tone is not cool. I enjoy Hannah’s quick wit and sarcasm but sometimes she crosses the line. Republicans are people too and in most cases highly educated people who just don’t share your views. Ease up on the conservative detest because you are simply putting yourself in the category of abuse that you talk so much about hating.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Wolf via Flickr]

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 Response: Let’s Stop with the Republican Bashing 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.

Happy Back to School, folks!

While I was traveling around Canada last month, all of you were clearly partying up your last few weeks of summer, right? RIGHT? I hope so, because law school is now officially back in session.

And you know what that means!

You need me back in the saddle to keep you informed about all the racist, sexist, homophobic legal bullshit that’s going on! (Also, to give you lots of procrastination material. Let’s be real.)

So! Let’s talk about the Republicans and women, shall we?

This is going to be good.

Now that President Obama is getting depressingly close to being a lame duck, all the politicians are really starting to get antsy about the 2016 election. Candidates are being tapped, strategies are being thought out, and groundwork is being laid to win over the decisive voting blocs.

For the Republicans, a key point of concern is the Beyoncé Voters. All the single ladies — and even plenty of the not-so-single ladies — are seriously skeptical of conservatives these days. According to a recent GOP report leaked by Politico, 49 percent of women hold a negative view of the Republican Party. It bluntly reported that women believe Republican policies to be misaligned with their own priorities and to be lacking in compassion and understanding.

As a result, the ladies are taking their votes elsewhere. And for good reason. Women aren’t wrong when they say that conservative politicians aren’t acting in their best interest. Republican policies advocate restricted access to birth control, virtually no access to safe abortion services, the continued entrenchment of rape culture and domestic violence, as well as a hearty LOL at equal pay.

So nope — we’re not voting for policies that take away our bodily autonomy, restrict our access to safe and affordable healthcare, leave us vulnerable to violence, and also make us poorer.

Goodness, what a mystery that more of us aren’t voting for you, conserva-turds!

Well, apparently, Republicans have solved the mystery, and are rolling out a new initiative to win the vaginal vote in 2016.

Are you ready for it?

They’re going to calmly explain to us little ladies that we’ve been mistaken this whole time — the Republican Party really is acting in our best interest — and now that we’ve cleared that whole mess up, won’t you please vote for us, darlin’?

They aren’t going to actually change any of their policies. They aren’t going to actually do anything different AT ALL.

The big, awesome, Republican strategy is to tell women that they know us better than we know ourselves, expect us to laugh good naturedly at our silly, womanly inability to understand the complex, crazy world of politics, and agreeably hand over our votes, glad to have been educated about our own feminine ineptitude.

What exactly will this episode of mansplaining look like? Republicans are going to attack the Democratic claim that their policies are unfair to women — without interrogating or changing those policies, mind you — and every time abortion comes up, they’ll change the subject as quickly as possible.

Conservatives seem to genuinely think this is a good plan.

R.R. Reno, an editor for the conservative journal First Things, wrote a completely serious, non-satirical essay about just how this plan would work in practice.

In it, he creates a fictional woman to use as an example of all the women who are mistakenly eschewing Republican policies. She’s a single, 35-year-old consultant, living in the suburbs of Chicago, “who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life.”

Translation: She’s a misinformed damsel in distress who presumably owns about 12 cats.

Apparently, this woman is in favor of social safety net-type Democratic policies — not because she believes that all people should have access to a baseline quality of life — but because she has no man to provide for her, which is clearly TERRIFYING. She dislikes Republican policies that take away her bodily autonomy and expect her to lead a traditional life of wife and motherhood NOT because they’re sexist and terrible and render her, legally, as a quasi-human/permanent child, but because “she wants to get married and feels vulnerable because she isn’t and vulnerable because she’s not confident she can.”

So basically, all the women who aren’t voting Republican are in serious need of the D. And according to Reno, conservatives can and will deliver it.

He goes on to theorize that our fictitious cat lady should support Republican policies because a pro-marriage culture will increase her likelihood of getting married, therefore increasing her overall happiness. All we have to do is explain that to her! And then she’ll vote for us! Yay! Problem solved!

What Reno, and his conservative compatriots, fail to realize, is that women aren’t voting Democrat because of their inability to legally bind themselves to a penis.

We’re voting Democrat because we want to have control over our own bodies, our own reproductive systems, and our own lives. We want to be able to support ourselves. We want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence.

Also, they’re clearly forgetting that some of us don’t even like the D. (Fellow clam divers, I see you.)

So, Republicans, I totally applaud your strategy for locking down the vaginal vote in 2016. It’s a really great idea.

Because you’re buying Hillary a one-way ticket to the Oval Office.

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D appeared first on Law Street.

According to a statement released by the Department of Defense on August 27, 2014, United States Army General Officer Michael T. Harrison was forced to retire recently with a reduced rank after being found to have mishandled reports of sexual assault. As I read the article published by The New York Times, I was expecting to find that some form of criminal action had also been taken and that there would be some recognition of sympathy for those victims whose cases had been mishandled. Instead, the consequences of this general’s actions were to retire as a one star general, as opposed to a two star. No criminal action was taken, and no justice to the victims was given.

If you have seen the eye-opening documentary ‘The Invisible War,’ then you know that it raised awareness for the appalling number of victims who are involved in sexual assaults in military settings, but also that it spurred legislation ensuring investigations of abuse were handled efficiently, and justice was given to the victims. As can be seen with Harrison’s case, these incidents are still occurring and as a woman myself, I still do not feel like enough is being done.

Susan Brownmiller, an American journalist, describes sexual assault in military settings as an unfortunate but inevitable by-product of the necessary game called war. Quite frankly, the punishment Harrison received is nothing short of a joke. After the amendment of federal policies regarding sexual assault in the military two years ago, I question Congress as to why this is still happening? This game we call ‘sexual assault in war’ is unacceptable. According to “The Invisible War,”

‘Since 2006, more than 95,000 service members have been sexually assaulted in the U.S. military. More than 86 percent of service members do not report their assault, and less than five percent of all sexual assaults are put forward for prosecution, with less than a third of those cases resulting in imprisonment.’

These figures should be enough to not only change punishment for the mishandling of reports of sexual assault, but to help victims come forward and receive justice for their traumatic experiences. As of 2014, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, federal law now defines Military Sexual Trauma (MST) as one of the most frequent diagnoses given to veterans of warfare. If we know that so many individuals suffer from such traumatic experiences, why isn’t policy being changed? Even more importantly, why aren’t those who are meant to protect us doing their jobs properly?

Each military force dominates the way reports and investigations of assault are handled. This ‘in house’ shambles of a system is essentially allowing officials to get away with their own wrongdoings. We are allowing individuals to commit acts without fear of punishment or consequence. In order to lower the rates of sexual assault in the military, the focus needs to be on controlling the environment, and providing an alternative system for report of misconduct. I am no expert in changing legislation, and I am no intellectual genius on the makings of policy, but I am certainly no fool to being aware that victims are suffering, and legislators need to wake up and realize that this type of consequence is normalizing military sexual assaults.

Our common coping mechanism for crime is imposing laws to regulate punishment to those who inflict pain and suffering. By imposing taking someone’s gold sparkly badge away and giving him or her a silver sparkly one instead because they essentially ignored someone’s suffering, is unacceptable. Sexual assault and abuse is not normal, regardless of the situation, regardless of the setting, and regardless of the perpetrator. In order to enable victims to report their abusers, and in order to protect future men and women from the pain and suffering so many veterans go through, something needs to change!

Now more than ever, I cannot wrap my head around the fact that our same country who is fighting to protect us from terrorism, our country who is fighting for the rights of the thousands of innocent individuals losing their lives in the Middle East, can also be the same country that contains individuals being sexually violated and then silenced by the same exact people who are meant to protect us.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Military Sexual Assault Remains a Major National Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

A young woman in Houston, TX, claims that she was just fired for being pregnant. The woman, who worked as a case manager for the personal injury law firm Wayne Wright, reportedly told her employers that she was pregnant and would be requiring maternity leave. She claims that in response, the firm told her that they could not accommodate that request and that she would have to “choose her last day on the job.” Her job has since been terminated.

I could pretend that this is a crazy isolated incident, but I think we all know better than that. The United States takes pretty bad care of its expecting mothers–we are one of just a few countries that does not require paid maternity leave. In case you were curious, the only other nations that do not offer those benefits are Oman and Papua New Guinea.

When it comes to laws preventing employers from firing their employees because they’re pregnant, the United States does have the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That law is supposed to prevent companies from discriminating against women for being pregnant, past pregnancies, or the possibility of future pregnancies. However, the law is a bit sparse, and has some serious loopholes. According to the law, companies must give women 12 weeks of unpaid leave for medical reasons such as pregnancy and childbirth. However, that law only officially applies to companies with at least 50 employees, and the woman applying for the leave must have worked for the company for at least 12 months. Other parts of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act only apply if the company has more than 15 employees. Experts’ estimates about how many employees are actually eligible for 12 weeks of unpaid leave range from 20 percent to 59 percent.

This is obviously a very simplistic overview of the legal protections offered by the government to pregnant women–there are other state and local laws in place that provide some benefits. However, those laws are inconsistent and often inadequate. In general, the United States does a pretty miserable job of helping pregnant women keep their jobs.

The woman in Houston who is now suing is notable because if she’s telling the truth, the discrimination waged against her was of a very overt nature. Oftentimes, discrimination against pregnant women, or women who have the potential to become pregnant, is considerably more subtle. Sometimes women not hired or promoted because of they may become pregnant and require some sort of leave. Here’s an example: a husband and wife, both teachers, interviewed for very similar jobs. They both have similar work experience, although the wife also had a master’s degree. She was asked many questions about her personal life, including whether or not she’s planning on getting pregnant. The husband was not asked whether or not he plans to become a father–or really anything about his personal life in general. In a Reddit post about her experience, the aforementioned woman stated:

I was asked ‘Do you have children yet?’ I was taken aback so I just ended up saying ‘Nope, just cats.’ I’m child-free but I knew better than to state that in an interview for a teaching position. I was still nervous and in ‘interview mode’ so it didn’t really hit me until after how shitty it was to be asked that question.

Not only is that question blatantly illegal–Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prevents such inquiries–I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many men asked about their familial intentions in a job interview.

In some cases, the discrimination against young female employees is even less subtle. A few weeks ago, a web developer from Toronto named Lyndsay Kirkham was sitting next to a bunch of IBM executives out to a business lunch. According to her, they went on a bit of a rant about how they don’t hire young women because “they are just going to get themselves pregnant again and again and again.”

It’s also important to note that discrimination against pregnant women hits low-income families particularly hard. Women who work in jobs that require some degree of manual labor–such as retail, or food service, are often not provided the accommodations they need while pregnant. This may even force pregnant women to take unpaid leave, or quit their jobs.

Whether backhanded or overt, the discrimination in this country against pregnant and potentially pregnant women is real. This case in Houston is just one of countless examples, because the laws we have in place simply aren’t enough. Until the United States improves the ways in which it treats pregnant women, what happened at that Houston law firm will happen again and again.

—

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 [Ed Yourdon 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 It Happens Every Day: Pregnant Woman Fired for Being Pregnant appeared first on Law Street.

Hey loves! How’ve you been? Did ya miss me?

I know, I know, it’s been awhile. I’ve left you hanging. But I’m back now, and after the past few weeks of doom and gloom left in the wake of the Hobby Lobby catastrophe, I’ve got some slightly lighter fare up my sleeve for you all.

Have any of you heard of Google Code School? It’s pretty rad. Basically, Google and Code School — two separate companies — teamed up to offer coding and development classes for folks working in technology. More rad, they announced that they’d be giving out vouchers for free classes to women and minorities — two groups that aren’t as well represented in the tech industry, in large part due to lack of access.

My best friend shared the news with me when Business Insider broke it earlier this summer, and both of us were pretty pumped.

We’re women! We work in technology — sort of. Doesn’t everyone kind of work in tech, nowadays? Our jobs are almost completely dependent on the Internet, so improving on our very rudimentary knowledge of coding would be hugely, wildly useful.

So, my friend and I followed Business Insider’s prompting and signed up for Code School. It was a pretty straightforward application, as user-friendly as all things Google tend to be. We gave our basic identifying information, confirmed that we were, in fact, WOMEN, a.k.a. qualified for said vouchers, and provided a little mini-essay about why we wanted to learn more about coding.

Easy enough.

Unsurprisingly, neither of us was accepted. Probably about a zillion other people applied for Code School, and Google can only give out so many vouchers for free classes. We understand, Google. We forgive you. (Sort of.)

That’s where the story should end, right? Apply to Code School, get rejected, walk away with our womanhood and lack of HTML coding fully intact, right?

You would think so.

But! The plot thickens. In applying for Google Code School, my friend and I were both also clandestinely enrolled in a strange, mysterious mailing list. It’s now terrorizing our inboxes a few times a week.

Has anyone here heard of the Levo League? It’s fucking ridiculous.

On its website homepage, Levo League claims to be a community “dedicated to your career success.” It’s geared toward professional women and offers tips for progressing in your career, weekly video chats with mentors, and job listings. To be fair, some of the mentors are pretty awesome — it counts women like Sandra Fluke among its ranks, and even a healthy smattering of men, like Humans of New York creator Brandon Stanton. (HONY, we love you.)

But, I didn’t come across Levo League because I was excited to hear Sandra Fluke tell me how to stick it to asshats like Rush Limbaugh. Nope. I came across Levo League because it sent me this wildly — almost laughably, absurdly — infuriating email.

Subject line, “How to Dress Professionally for Your Body Type.”

Seriously? This is the awesome advice you’re dishing out to professional women about how to boost their careers, Levo League?

How about, PUT PROFESSIONAL CLOTHES ON YOUR BODY. Boom. Done. You’ve dressed professionally.

Because, seriously, isn’t that what men do? Show me an article telling men how to hide their beer bellies and elongate their legs at work. Can’t find any? Yeah. That’s because a man’s professional worth isn’t measured by how tastefully he shows off his pecks or how skillfully he can cinch his waist.

Articles like this do nothing to help women boost their careers. If anything, they contribute to a culture that devalues women’s contributions in the workplace, reminding us all that our main function is ornamental. We’re only as valuable as we are attractive.

Despite Levo’s obvious effort to be a wee bit less objectifying than most attempts to sort women into shapes — they define body types not by fruit, but by adjectives like “petite,” “curvy,” “athletic,” the ever diplomatic “column,” and the always obnoxious “plus-size” — this is still nothing but sexism and body-shaming, cloaked in kindly advice.

Instead of instructing curvy and plus-size women on how to appear thinner and more petite, and dishing to athletic, column, and petite women about how to appear shapelier, why don’t we just tell all the women to love their damn bodies and pour more brain power into their actual work than into their wardrobe?

Think about all of the awesome, wonderful, revolutionary things women could be doing if they weren’t so busy worrying about whether their peplum top is making their hips look too big.

Think about all the time and brainpower we’d collectively save if we thought less about if our pants are just the right length for our curvy/athletic/column-shaped legs (each type requires a different length, apparently), and more about our actual jobs.

These kinds of advice articles — all of them — do nothing but distract women from doing valuable, wonderful things by reminding us that we have a thousand other things to worry about. Were you feeling confident and secure in yourself for a minute there, sweetheart? Stop that shit right now, take all of the energy you were previously dedicating to positive innovation and self-love, and redirect it toward fretting endlessly about all of the insecurities our patriarchal, consumerist society has manufactured for you.

Not to mention, this particular article assumes that all of the women it’s addressing are cis-gendered, feminine, and upper-middle class. Levo League, like so many other women-in-business organizations, fails to address the needs of queer folks, gender-non-conforming people, butch women, poor women, or working class women.

In other words, Levo League is really only interested in helping the women who need help the least. They’re not about inspiring and facilitating a mass revolution, where all the women collectively rise up and improve their lots in life. They’re about helping already privileged women amass even more privilege.

Levo League, you’re not helping. You’re just perpetuating the same damn problems that keep women disadvantaged at work in the first place.

Knock it off.

—

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

Featured imaged courtesy of [Andre Benedix via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post Levo League’s Advice to Working Women: Look Prettier appeared first on Law Street.

Mallory Loyola became the first pregnant woman to be arrested and charged with assault on her fetus under Tennessee’s new controversial law criminalizing the illegal use of drugs during pregnancy. Loyola was arrested July 8, 2014, one week after the law went into effect. The 26-year-old tested positive for methamphetamine (not technically a narcotic) before being released on bail. If convicted Loyola could be incarcerated for up to a year.

According to the new law, “a woman may be prosecuted for assault for the illegal use of a narcotic drug while pregnant, if her child is born addicted to or harmed by the narcotic drug.” If a woman does not enroll in a treatment program for the narcotic, she would be charged. According to RH Reality Check, a reproductive health news group, “the law was promoted by prosecutors against the recommendations of medical professionals.” Governor Bill Haslam says that the legislation is intended to encourage women to go to treatment centers; however, the effect of the bill may be different from its intended purpose.

Outcomes of Criminalizing Pregnancy

Imani Gandy of RH Reality Check suggests that Black women will be targeted by the law’s enforcement at a disproportionate rate. Based on ugly stereotypes with roots in Reagan-era “crack baby” rhetoric, more scrutiny would be placed on pregnant Black women, Gandy says. Whether or not these prejudices are acted on, there is a structural problem for disadvantaged, minority women.

State Senator Mike Bell explained that in his rural district “there’s no treatment facility for these women there, and it would be a substantial drive for a woman caught in one of these situations to go to an approved treatment facility. Looking at the map of the state, there are several areas where this is going to be a problem.” Healthy and Free Tennessee notes that the state has 177 addiction treatment facilities; yet only two “provide prenatal care on site and allow older children to stay with their mothers, and only 19 provide any addiction care for pregnant women.” For impoverished women, accessing and enrolling in treatment centers will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

There is a discrepancy between the intention of the bill, as suggested by Haslam, and the likely effect of the bill. While it may have been passed to incentivize enrollment in treatment programs, it will likely result in the incarceration of women who cannot access those treatment centers. Because Tennessee did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, the costs of such treatment may be overwhelming. Women who know that they cannot access addiction services will be discouraged from seeking help, lest they be charged with assault and have their children taken away.

Other Approaches 

In response to prenatal substance abuse, Tennessee passed the Safe Harbor Act about a year ago. The 2013 legislation, also signed by Haslam, was designed to ensure that women can access treatment centers without fear of incarceration or having their children removed. The more recent bill not only negates the benefits of the Safe Harbor Act, but regresses Tennessee even further.

This heavy-handed approach to prenatal substance abuse hints at another discrepancy: addiction is viewed by some as a disease, and by others as a crime. While the state and the governor embrace the latter with the passage and enforcement of this law, the federal government has taken a different approach.

Michael Botticelli, acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, spoke about the federal government’s broad strategy in response to the recent Tennessee law: “Under the Obama administration, we’ve really tried to reframe drug policy not as a crime but as a public health-related issue, and that our response on the national level is that we not criminalize addiction.” The politics of considering substance abuse a criminal offense rather than a disease is amplified by the politics of federal-state relationships.

Support for the Law

The Tennessee Medical Association was supportive of the Safe Harbor Act, yet its president, Dr. Doug Springer, recently spoke out in favor of the new law. “The misdemeanor means it can be expunged by a judge, it means that the [Department of Human Services] doesn’t take your baby away. It has nothing to do with an application for a job because it doesn’t interfere with your job prospects, and that’s really important,” says Dr. Springer. Obviously, if a mother is incarcerated, she and her baby could not be together. But if the law makes it easy for the offense to be expunged, incarcerated mothers may not have to go through as many obstacles as other ex-convicts.

Because the law is so new, Mallory Loyola’s outcome will set precedent. The law is set to expire after two years, at which time Tennessee will evaluate its effects.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Greyerbaby via Pixabay]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Pregnant Woman Arrested Under Controversial Tennessee Law appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks!

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks for women out there.

First—as I’m sure you recall—SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, giving employers the right to deny workers birth control coverage because of religious exemptions, and essentially giving douche-wad bosses everywhere the potential to control their employees’ uteruses.

Awesome.

And now, things are getting much, much worse.

Following the Hobby Lobby decision, religious institutions, religiously-run corporations, and basically anyone who is a fan of Jesus and also has some modicum of control over other people’s lives, are filing for the right to discriminate against people under religious exemptions.

Say good-bye to your civil rights, folks.

A group of 14 religious leaders wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in closely-held corporations. George Fox University demanded a religious exemption that would allow it to bar a transgender student from living on campus, and the Department of Education granted it.

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her?

And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

Loves, this shit is scary. And not fear-monger-y type scary. Legit disturbing.

When the Hobby Lobby decision first came down it signaled yet another chip away at civil liberties and women’s rights in this country. One more piece of legal bullshit that diminishes a woman’s right to control her own body. One more reminder that women aren’t seen as real people or full adults in the United States, but rather as wards of the state, our spouses, our fathers, or apparently, our employers.

But as awful as that is, the asshat Justices who voted for this decision assured us that the Hobby Lobby ruling would end there. It would be a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation, and that feminists would only have to fight against this one, single issue. Access to birth control regardless of what your boss’s religious beliefs are.

Justice Ginsburg called bullshit, and now I’m calling that she was right.

This ruling is not narrow. We can no longer be solely concerned with its reversal because women deserve the right to control their own goddamn bodies.

Nope. Instead, it’s turning out to be frighteningly broad, as the Supreme Court demands reviews of similar cases in lower courts and considers handing out more religious exemptions based on the precedent that Hobby Lobby’s now set.

Where does this end? There’s really no way to know just yet, but the possibilities are kind of endless.

Don’t want to hire women at your company? Sure thing, buddy! Claim that doing so would place an undue burden on you as a result of your religious beliefs and you’re good to go.

Don’t want to hire black people at your company either? No problem. Religious exemptions all around.

Can’t stand the thought of your female employees having consequence-free sex? Awesome. Religious exemption and boom! You just gained control over your workers’ uteruses. Don’t you feel better knowing your vagina-laden employees aren’t sleeping around (at least, not without feeling extreme anxiety about their reproductive systems)?

And maybe you don’t want to pay LGBT people the same amount of money as your straight employees. Or maybe you don’t want to hire them at all! Cool, dude. Religious exemption.

This shit is ridiculous. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court just created a loophole for every piece of non-discrimination legislation ever enacted. Civil rights of all kinds—not just for women—are at serious risk. If anyone feels like they want to engage in some good, old-fashioned discrimination, they can pretty much do so! They just have to make a case for getting a religious exemption first.

And clearly, based on the fact that Hobby Lobby won its case, despite building it on a foundation of craptastic non-science, that’s not super hard to do.

So, way to go, SCOTUS! You really fucked things up for all of us, this time. Not only have you created an environment where everyone can be their own law book, but you’ve sent us down a path that will undoubtedly be littered with regressive politics.

The fight for personhood just got that much harder, lovelies.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Daryl Clark via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, this is not a happy Tuesday.

Why? Because the Supreme Court made a really shitty decision yesterday. (And we’re not even talking about the bullshit Aereo ruling from last week. WHY DO YOU TAKE ALL THE GOOD THINGS AWAY?!)

Monday, with a slim 5-4 majority, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, deeming that employers can’t be legally compelled to provide insurance coverage for birth control and emergency contraception that are in conflict with their religious beliefs.

This decision is so wildly fucked up on so many levels. SO. MANY.

For those of you who don’t remember, we covered the Hobby Lobby case here at Law Street earlier this year, but here’s the quick gist: the company, which is owned by a family of devout Christians, is not a big fan of the Affordable Care Act and its rules regarding birth control.

While so far Hobby Lobby’s been covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA for its employees, it’s been holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception and two forms of emergency birth control. Why? They’re spewing some zealously crap-tastic pseudo-science claiming these methods are “abortifacients,” which they unequivocally are not.

Despite the fact that Hobby Lobby’s case is built on totally unsubstantiated non-science and a complete disregard for the separation of church and state, SCOTUS decided to rule in their favor.

Now, thanks to this fuckery, if your boss’ religion says you shouldn’t be preventing or planning your pregnancies, sorry ladies! No bodily agency for you. The guy who signs your paycheck each week now controls your uterus.

Oh, and just to be clear, this refusal to cover birth control methods only applies to women. Vasectomies, which serve exactly the same purpose for men, will still be covered. So we’re really not talking about the religious evils of family planning or bodily autonomy. We’re only talking about the evils of women maintaining control over their lives.

But actually.

First of all, let’s talk about who made this decision, shall we? A tiny little group of men.

Literally. That slim majority who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby was 100 percent men. Every female Supreme Court justice sided with the dissent. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. (Obligatory shout out to Justice Stephen G. Breyer for being the only dude to side with the feminists on this one. We appreciate you, sir.)

So, let’s all take a moment and sigh gigantic, heaving sighs of exasperation at the fact that the bodies of women all over this nation have just been legislated by five, non-uterus-having men.

This could not be clearer. This ruling is about controlling women. Plain and simple.

And it gets worse. Aside from the fact that a bunch of entitled, sexist, wing-bat man-justices just infringed upon women’s bodily autonomy, they also opened up a Pandora’s Box of legal ambiguity.

As the oh-so-wonderful Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points out in her ball-busting dissent, exempting employers from providing health insurance coverage for birth control because of their religious beliefs brings up a slew of other possible exemptions.

Will companies owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses be allowed to withhold coverage for blood transfusions? Can Scientologists deny their employees antidepressants? The pig-derived ingredients used to produce anesthesia, vaccines, and pills coated in gelatin can conflict with the religious beliefs of Muslims, Jews, and Hindus. Will employees of companies held by owners of these religions find themselves without coverage as well?

In truth, maybe. That’s the precedent the court is setting with this Hobby Lobby decision. So, watch out if you work for an orthodox Jewish-owned company and need surgery. You might have to suffer through it sans anesthesia.

Seriously? This shit is ridiculous. The legal absurdity SCOTUS is willing to open itself to in the interest of tightening its leash on American women is completely, batshit crazy.

But wait. There’s more. Now that SCOTUS has decided that companies/people (because corporations are apparently more human than women) can pick and choose which parts of a law they abide by based on their religious convictions, all of the laws have the potential to become piecemeal and sort of meaningless.

Everyone, potentially, can become a law book unto themselves. Don’t like this new bill? No problem! Say it conflicts with your religion, and you can opt right out. This defeats the purpose of law entirely — which is, presumably, to protect the people with a set of rules that are established for the common good.

There is no common good anymore, and there is no protection. Your employer thinks you’re a slut who shouldn’t be sleeping around? Too bad for you, love. He can limit your choices and circumscribe your life, and you get no say in the matter.

And finally, the mess this ruling makes out of the freedom of religion clause is insane. Folks are meant to be free to practice their religion without fear of persecution — not to impose their religion as a tool for persecution on unwilling others.

At this moment, the United States is as politically polarized as it was during the Civil War. Secularist, social-safety-net-supporting liberals and religious, anti-tax conservatives are at war right now. This Hobby Lobby decision is just another case in which the battle field is women’s bodies.

So let’s fight this bullshit war, folks. If you believe that women should have affordable access to birth control, join me and Planned Parenthood by telling SCOTUS just how you feel.

We want control over our own bodies and our own lives. Fuck anyone who gets in our way.

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post SCOTUS Just Made a Battlefield Out of Women’s Bodies appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, have you been watching the news lately?

I’m guessing yes, because you’re all socially conscious, politically engaged legal mavericks, right?

Awesome! So you’ve heard about ISIS, then, I’m sure.

In case you haven’t been watching the news lately — because sunshine and summer weather — ISIS is an extremist Muslim terrorist group that currently controls a significant chunk of northern Iraq and parts of rebel Syria. Not coincidentally, their territory overlaps a TON with important oil sources. Once a part of al-Qaeda, ISIS split off as its own separate entity earlier this year.

Why?

Because their ideology was too extreme even for bin Laden’s cronies. That says a lot.

ISIS — which stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – made news this week after the Washington Post translated its “Contract of the City,” a document that was distributed to citizens of the Iraqi province of Nineveh. Folks, it’s pretty cray.

The contract essentially reads like a list of rules, a dos and don’ts guideline, if you will, for the people of Nineveh. It lists limb amputation as a suitable punishment for stealing, allows for the crucifixion of criminals, and essentially bans women from leaving their homes.

This is really not cool. But! Before you get all hawk-eyed and demand American intervention in Iraq to save all the poor, downtrodden Iraqi victims, let’s all take a moment and listen to Jon Stewart.

I fucking love this man.

Folks, here’s the deal: Groups like al Qaeda, and its increasingly violent offshoot, ISIS, are awful and dangerous and need to be stopped. They totally need to stop existing. We are all in agreement there.

Not only do they pose a threat to the Iraqi people as a whole — who are at risk of getting their limbs chopped off willy nilly if they break a rule on their way to work — but they also pose a threat to the larger global community. Their ideology is depressingly common, and the more power groups like theirs seize, the more hostile the world becomes to people who don’t fit into their agenda.

Namely women, queer people, trans people, disabled people, and people of different races, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds.

This is a group that sees women as inherently less than. They’re required to wear “modest dress,” which essentially means they’ll be punished for wearing anything other than a full burqa. They can’t leave their homes. They are bought and sold like property from fathers to husbands. And wife beating? Totally cool.

ISIS doesn’t see women — or anyone else who isn’t a straight, masculine-presenting, Muslim man — as people. They’re not human beings. It’s a really, really bad situation.

And because of that, along with obvious national security concerns, many Americans want to rush our military right back into Iraq. John McCain, as the always entertaining Jon Stewart reminds us, is one of those folks. But there’s a huge hole in that plan.

Groups like ISIS exist because of Western intervention in the Middle East. They are a direct result of Western imperialism. Al Qaeda formed in the late 1980s as a reaction to Russia’s occupation of Afghanistan — a move that subjected the Afghan people to extreme violence and poverty. It formed as a resistance movement, an answer to the injustices Afghanistan faced at the hands of European, imperialist oppressors.

And they only gained traction as the West continued to insert itself into a corner of the world where it ultimately didn’t belong. Violence and living conditions worsened for civilians. Coups were staged, leaders were deposed, and corrupt figureheads were set up in their place. (Remember Saddam Hussein? The U.S. and Great Britain put him there).

The political problems that plague the Middle East are largely our fault. But instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of misguided power-grabbing and oil pursuit, the U.S. likes to paint a different picture. A pretty racist one, in fact, where Iraqi is a confused, childlike nation, unable to govern itself without making a huge mess. And Americans? We’re painted as the concerned father figure, stepping in to calm the commotion.

But folks, it’s not true. This story is a lie.

The U.S. isn’t a soothing father figure. It’s more like an instigator. And the sexist, xenophobic ideology of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda isn’t the product of an unsophisticated, backward, childlike nation. The ideology of our conservative leaders is chillingly similar, if more palatably phrased and with Jesus, not Allah, at its helm.

The white savior narrative that war hawks like John McCain are spewing was created by an elite group of politicians and corporate powerhouses who crave money, power, and oil. They don’t care what it costs.

But I hope that you do.

Let’s come up with a more innovative solution to warmongering in Iraq. A solution that doesn’t rely on lies, racism, and increased violence. A solution that creates real, positive change for the people living under ISIS’ tyranny.

Show the comments what you’ve got.

Featured image courtesy of [United States Forces Iraq via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post PLEASE STOP: How Warhawks Are Perpetuating Violence and Racism appeared first on Law Street.

She was the Hillary Clinton before Hillary Clinton. She stared gender stereotypes in the face and boldly took them on. She paved the way for women desiring to make their mark in the political world and did so with pride. Though she never once considered a career in politics growing up, Patricia Schroeder became a national icon and a representative of women and their rights during her time serving in the United States Congress. She shocked the masses time and time again, especially when she ran an unprecedented campaign for President of the United States.

Despite her monumental achievements, she is surrounded by a humble and genuine air. I felt completely comfortable approaching her at her appearance at the Library of Congress last week to request an interview. I wrote a brief article chronicling the short event, which barely whet my palate of curiosity. Luckily she quickly agreed to my request.

Patricia Schroeder, born in Oregon, comes from modest beginnings. Her father worked in the aviation industry, which often uprooted the family from one city to another. Because of her father’s career, Patricia Schroeder obtained a license to fly and developed an admiration for Amelia Earhart, along with other bold female figures. “Eleanor Roosevelt and Amelia Earhart were two women who spoke their minds and branched out and did things that women weren’t normally doing,” Schroeder explained in a pensive tone during our phone conversation.

Because her mother was a teacher, Pat Schroeder grew up with a female role model who was successful as both a mother and a working woman. “I was very lucky in that my mother was a teacher and I didn’t have as many hangups about being able to work and raise my children. I didn’t have such a severe attack of guilt about doing both. [My parents] encouraged me to do whatever I want.” Schroeder does not think that her political career had any negative impacts on her children. “They are both well adjusted, not on drugs, one went to Princeton and got a PhD, one went to Georgetown and got an MBA, and they’re both married with two kids.” Yes, it sounds like they are doing just fine.

During our interview, Schroeder recounted an amusing anecdote about the time when her son called her while he was at college. The simple reason was to thank her for not constantly asking if he was dating anyone like the mothers of his friends did. Schroeder said that the information about his friends’ romantic lives was none of their parents’ business.

After attending the University of Minnesota for her undergraduate degree, Schroeder attended Harvard Law School. When I asked how her time at Harvard changed her as a person, she pointed out that it was good preparation for entering into the male dominated Congress later on in life. “I went to the University of Minnesota first and there were 30 or 40 thousand students. It was huge and we were assumed to be adults; if you come and you pass, great, if you come and don’t pass, too bad. At Harvard it was more regimented in a way. A lot of the students had always gone to private schools or [gender] segregated schools and couldn’t get over going to schools with girls.” She told me that men constantly lectured her about taking a “man’s job.”

Despite her immense success as a player in the political arena, Schroeder never considered a career in politics before her husband’s suggestion that she run for congress to challenge the Republican incumbent in their Colorado district. James, her husband, was not only responsible for jump starting her career as a politician at age 32, but also acted as a role model for men whose wives were in similar roles. “A lot of guys didn’t know how to manage if their wife was in a prominent role,” Schroeder explained. “They thought it reflected on their masculinity.”

Being one of the few female politicians at the time was certainly challenging, but Schroeder used a variety of techniques to combat the difficulties. When I asked if she ever tried to change herself to better fit into the testosterone-dominated world of Washington politics, she quickly answered, “No. I always figured I was not an actress. If I couldn’t be myself this whole thing was not going to happen. What you saw was what you got.”

She was always well known for her quippy one-liners and sense of humor. For example, when asked how she could be a mother and a politician, she explained that she had “a uterus and a brain that both worked.” According to Schroeder, “humor is a wonderful way to keep your head. You can either get mad or find humor in it.” She partly attributes her ability to come up with her famous quotes to her gender. “Males always use sports analogies. Part of why people thought [my sense of humor] was different, was just the gender difference in what women might say. They rarely talk about ‘moving the goal posts’.”

Though in some ways women’s rights have come a long way, many issues still stand out for Schroeder as great challenges facing women today. “To me, it’s shocking that we are just a few years away from looking at having had the vote for 100 years, and yet we still aren’t in the constitution. Still? Remember Abigail Adams writing to John saying ‘remember the ladies’? Well, they still haven’t remembered the ladies.” Preventive healthcare for women is also an issue at the forefront of Schroeder’s mind, as it always was during her time in Congress. “One hundred years ago, Margaret Sanger was saying contraception was a big part of women’s preventative health issues and now the Supreme Court is looking into if it is necessary.”

Schroeder also criticizes the lack of equality between women and men in the workforce, and the measly amount of time given to women for maternity leave. “Two-thirds of the minimum wage earners are women and women college graduates will make less than men by about one million six.” Single moms have still got a really tough time, and we haven’t done anything to make childcare more accessible. In the United States, if you work for a group of more than 50 people you can get 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Women are not a minority, yet we haven’t been able to put it together and say ‘enough already.’ Somehow, it just hasn’t moved women and I guess I must be strange.”

During both of my encounters with Schroeder, she proved to be anything but “strange.” I see her as simply ahead of the curve, as she always was. Her iconic role as a political pioneer for women made it easier for them to enter into similar careers. Patricia Schroeder is a prominent advocate for taking action to make a change. “Don’t wait for somebody to ask you — men never wait to be asked. We keep pretending that we are at a dance and this is not a dance. Women are 100 percent qualified and men about 50 percent. Getting women to step forward and say ‘I can do this’ is very important, and they couldn’t mess it up any more than it already is.”

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Patricia Schroeder: Trailblazer for Women in Politics appeared first on Law Street.

One out of every five cases of violent victimization in America is domestic violence. You read that correctly — one out of five, according to the latest National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Published in April, this report illustrates a disturbing yet unsurprising state of affairs.

Just over half of all domestic violence cases involving intimate partners or immediate family members during this period were reported to police (56 percent), while just under half of cases of victimization by other family members were reported (49 percent). In addition to the 23 percent of domestic violence victimizations, another 32 percent were perpetrated by “well-known/casual acquaintances.” More than half of all violent victimizations, then, are committed by offenders known by the victim. In general, violence is not random.

Violence Against Women 

When all violent crimes are considered, men are slightly more likely to be victimized than women. However, in terms of domestic violence women are more often the victims, making up 76 percent of all such incidents. This is especially the case in intimate partner violence (IPV), which shows an even larger gap: an 82-18 percent disparity between women and men, respectively. IPV is also the most prevalent and injurious form of domestic violence.

The recent campaign “Bring Back Our Girls” has been powerful in that it created rallying cry, worldwide, against the discrimination of women. While the energy behind it is purely positive, I think that America forgets about its own issues too often. We take pride when scolding other nations for their de jure systems of oppression. As a recent World Bank report illustrates, it is not a crime to restrict women in many countries. Rather, their restriction is a part of the legal system. Active government constraint of the freedoms that women deserve is not (as) prevalent in the United States. But it remains shameful, or criminal, that our government can ignore domestic violence to the extent that it does.

Action For Women

IPV can be associated with poverty. As the World Bank report states, “Intimate partner violence (IPV) is more frequent and severe among poorer groups across such diverse countries as India, Nicaragua, and the United States.” Our lawmakers can do something by restructuring the tax code and revitalizing government programs. Getting rid of loopholes while lowering all brackets’ rates could actually increase revenue and make room for stronger assistance programs. Of course this means that reforming welfare and SNAP will have to be taken seriously.

Undocumented citizen status may also exacerbate IPV. As SafeHouse Denver describes, there are a host of methods used by aggressors against immigrant women to keep them from reporting domestic violence. Our lawmakers can do something by reforming immigration laws, reducing harsh enforcement, and making the path to citizenship more accessible. In turn, that would make it more difficult for abusers to discourage immigrant women from seeking help.

IPV can turn into homicide when firearms are involved. The annual “When Men Murder Women” report by the Violence Policy Center shows the relationship between firearm homicide and domestic violence. Our lawmakers can do something by mandating tougher restrictions on guns, which may reduce the number of domestic violence cases that become fatal. Because fatal domestic violence cases go unrecorded by the NCVS, this issue is even greater than the recent report may suggest.

Ending the Trend

Cultural change has the power to reshape the way we raise our children, it has the power to reshape the way partners treat each other, and it has the power to reshape how students behave on college campuses. However, we cannot rely solely on social movements. The political structure and our government’s actions must reflect, and catalyze, the social shifts on the ground. Yes, we need to advocate for cultural change. Yes, all women. Yes, all men. But it would be remiss to not demand policies that can diminish IPV. If we are to truly champion the end of domestic violence, the end of sexual assault, and the end of a system that leaves so many women battered, it will be necessary to call on our government to make changes. Especially when solutions would be beneficial in so many other policy areas, it is criminal that our politicians are not doing more to combat domestic violence.

___

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [US Military via Wikimedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Domestic Violence: Ending the Trend appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Hump Day, folks!

Have you had your mid-afternoon pickmeup yet? I fucking hope so, because I’m not easing you into this today. We’re just going to cut right to the chase.

We’re talking about rape, today, folks.

Prepare to be simultaneously infuriated and irrationally happy.

About two weeks ago in Calhoun, Ga, it was prom night. The teenagers of Calhoun High School were pumped to get fancy and get down. Let’s all picture the jubilation of Footloose, for a moment, shall we?

Awesome. But post-prom, shit started to get a bit less Kevin Bacon and a bit more Steubenville, Ohio. At an after party — predictably held at a secluded cabin in the woods — nearly 30 students got super drunk. Things quickly spun out of control.

After several hours of heavy drinking, an 18-year-old woman found herself in a room with four of her male classmates, where she was allegedly gang-raped. The victim reported being unable to remember exactly who raped her, only recalling that it was multiple men, and that foreign objects were inserted into her vagina. The victim suffered severe internal injuries from the assault, including substantial, traumatic, vaginal tearing.

Cue feelings of shock and appall.

What the fuck is going on here, people? What. The. Actual. Fuck.

This is not the first time I’ve written about rape here at The F Word. In fact, I’ve written about rape a depressing amount. We’ve talked about the infamous Steubenville rape case, the reasons your rapist probably won’t be facing any consequences, and the fact that lawmakers in Michigan are forcing women to take out rape insurance.

The world is filled with fucking rape. This is news to no one.

But let’s take a moment and think about why in fuck’s name this shit keeps happening. Why are men consistently and violently forcing themselves onto unwilling women?

Because they feel fucking entitled, that’s why.

Awesome attitude, dude.

Alcohol and drugs and partying and short skirts — contrary to what Fox News and its ilk will have you believe — do not cause rape. Rape culture causes rape. It’s a culture that privileges men and other masculine folks as the arbiters of power to be wielded over an inferior class of women and feminine-presenting folks. It’s a culture that says “boys will be boys,” “penises have a mind of their own,” “men can’t control themselves.”

It’s a culture that tells women to carry pepper spray, to pull their skirts down, not to go out at night alone, not to drink, not to date.

It’s a culture that tells women not to live their lives freely, so as to avoid violent assault, all while giving men free reign to do whatever the fuck they want, consent be damned. This is a culture that tells men they own the streets. They own the world. And they own women’s bodies.

This guy. This guy all over the fuckin’ place.

We all know that this rape in Calhoun is no isolated incident. But let’s reiterate just how not isolated it is.

1 out of every 6 women in the U.S. has been the victim of sexual assault.

That’s a lot of fucking women. And those are just the ones who are reporting their experiences and being counted — if we take silent victims into account, the numbers soar higher. Not to mention all the men who get raped, all the trans folks, all the genderqueers who aren’t being counted because statisticians aren’t sure where to fit them into the equation.

Rape is a hugely, wildly pervasive problem, and its victims are paying a lifetime price.

But the rapists themselves? Ninety-seven percent of them will face no jail time at all. No consequences. No accountability. Nothing.

This is beyond disappointing.

Now, it’s important to note that the vast majority of men and masculine-presenting people are not rapists. All you “Not All Men!” devil’s-advocate-conversation-derailers, please save your breath. We are fully aware that not all men are violent, rapist fucks.

And this Calhoun case is living, breathing proof of that. It stands out from other recent high-profile rape cases — like Steubenville — in that the authorities have taken the victim’s allegations seriously, are pressing substantial charges against the alleged perpetrators, and have not carried out a gross, slut-shaming, rape-apologist smear campaign against the victim.

This is the part where we can all get irrationally happy. Authority figures simply doing their jobs shouldn’t be cause for shocked celebration, but it’s undeniably rare that a rape case gets handled appropriately. Bravo, Calhoun law enforcement! Thank you for rising to the level of our depressingly low bar! (I mean that in the most sincere, not-sarcastic way possible, I promise.)

But amid our relief that Calhoun seems to be doing things right, we can’t forget about why these things keep happening.

Those four high school boys gang-raped their classmate for the same reason Michigan legislators are forcing women to buy rape insurance. That’s the same reason Daisy Coleman’s house was burned to the ground after she tried to report her own rape. It’s also the same reason Elliot Rodger murdered six people in Santa Barbara after penning a manifesto about what a crime it was that women had failed to offer him their vaginas on a silver platter.

It’s because we live in a society that doesn’t teach men not to rape. It doesn’t expect men to treat women or their bodies with kindness and respect. It makes excuses for violent behavior, shifts blame to victims, and props up an overarching culture in which men feel entitled to a woman’s sexuality and bodily autonomy.

Not all men are rapists, murderers, misogynists, slut-shamers, or victim-blamers. But all men live in a world where they’re mostly allowed to be. And women? All of us get to live in fear of meeting the same fate as Daisy Coleman, or running into an Elliot Rodger — and then being blamed for our own irresponsibility for putting ourselves in a position to be harmed in the first place. Don’t believe me? Just ask #YesAllWomen. This shit is real.

So folks, let’s raise this bar. Let’s create a world where it’s not exciting to meet a man who doesn’t feel entitled to your body, or a cop who will take your rape case seriously. Let’s fashion a society where all people — regardless of their gender — can move through the world without the fear of violence and domination. Let’s do it together.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Eric Parker via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post BREAKING: Cops in Georgia Are Taking a Rape Case Seriously appeared first on Law Street.

Happy graduation week, folks!

My office is right across the street from Radio City Music Hall in New York City, and I’ve been watching NYU’s Class of 2014 swarm the neighborhood all week. To all of our wonderful readers receiving diplomas — congratulations! You fuckin’ did it.

It’s been an eventful week, what with Michigan passing this craptastic rape insurance bill (excuse me while I barf all over my keyboard), and the backlash around Shailene Woodley’s not-a-feminist comment still swirling. Plus, the internet is filled with awesome commencement speeches. We’re looking at you, Sandra Bullock and Charlie Day.

Basically, this has been a week where we’re all looking ahead to the future. And so, we’re going to take a moment here and talk about the future of feminism.

SPOILER ALERT: It doesn’t just include the vagina-bearing likes of Shailene Woodley. Nope. It also includes men.

So, dudes of the world, here’s why feminism isn’t just for the ladies. It’s a fairly big deal for you too.

Let’s start by saying that, unless you’re a close-minded, neanderthal jerk, you believe in social, political, and economic equality between the sexes. If you DON’T believe in said equality — i.e., you’re a big fan of women being treated as inferior and subservient to men — then you are gigantic douchebag and I advise you to reform your troubled ways immediately.

Seriously, guys. We’re calling it like we see it. You’re not old-fashioned or traditional. You’re just a jerk. Get it together, would you please?

Thanks. Now, for the vast majority of you wonderful, well-intentioned, equality-minded men, listen up. I’ve met a lot of you who don’t actively identify as feminists. You’ve told me that it seems like a women’s club that you don’t really have a place in. Not to mention, you don’t entirely get it. Sure, ladies should be getting equal pay and all that, but we’re not the only ones who are suffering in this gender-biased society. Men get kind of a crap deal too.

Yes. Yes you do. And that’s why feminism needs you.

See, feminism isn’t just about securing safe and affordable access to abortion services, or raising a woman’s 77 cents to match a man’s dollar. Those are important aspects of the feminist cause, for sure, but they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

As a whole, feminism is about creating a more open and egalitarian society. As feminists, we’re fed up with gender roles that position women as sex objects and men as commodified breadwinners. We’re tired of values that expect women to cook and clean and men to pay all the bills. We’re sick of being told to “act like a lady” — to look pretty and keep our mouths and legs shut. We’re equally sick of being told to “be a man,” to be emotionless and aggressive to prove your masculinity.

Feminism is about achieving social, political, and economic equality for women — yes — because that’s something we still don’t have.

But it’s also about destroying the gender binary that’s currently ingrained in our society. It’s harmful to men, women, transfolks, genderqueers, and everyone in between. We’re all expected to play roles that don’t quite fit, to prove ourselves and our identities over and over again, to punish ourselves with shame when we fail to measure up.

We’re all left with a constant and nagging feeling of insecurity in our selves — in our worth as human beings — when we feel the need to qualify our desires, our actions, and our feelings with disclaimers like “no homo” and “man up.”

And all of us deserve to feel totally secure in our wants and needs, to feel completely comfortable in our skin, to be entirely at ease with our individuality.

Feminism wants that to happen. We’re working to make our relationships with each other less about power struggle and arbitrary expectations, and more about mutual respect and genuine human connection. And even more importantly, we’d like to make our relationships with ourselves less about shame and insecurity, and more about radical acceptance and self-love.

I feel like that’s a cause we can all get behind, can’t we?

So while you’re getting inspired by all the commencement speeches that are going viral this week, think about the future you want to help create. If it’s one where we break down this dysfunctional gender binary that’s holding us all back, then you’re a feminist.

Own it, menfolk. You’ll be making the world a better place.

And, bonus points – nothing’s sexier than a feminist man. Just ask Feminist Frank. (Seriously, feminist men, we love the shit out of you.)

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Toban Black via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post Dear Men: Feminism Makes You Sexy appeared first on Law Street.

Remember when F-Word blogger Hannah R. Winsten reported back in December that Michigan lawmakers were debating a bill that would prevent health insurance plans from covering abortion, essentially requiring women to purchase what came to be known as rape insurance? Well, that revolting bill is now a revolting law thanks to the Michigan GOP and (I am disappointed to say) three Democrats. Yep, rape insurance is real, people.

However, the real doozy is that abortion riders don’t exist. (Straight swindle!)

As the Detroit News explains, “the state “opt-out” rider law clashes with provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which outlaws both separate riders and any government subsidy of abortion. Under federal law insurers cannot offer a rider to a standard, inclusive policy. And new state law bars insurers from including elective abortion coverage in any policy, on or off the exchange.”

What this means: Michigan women who purchase their health insurance as an individual and not part of a group plan don’t have the ‘promised’ option to purchase the abortion rider. Because the bill passed violates the Affordable Care Act’s provisions of outlawing separate riders and government subsidies on a standard policy. This makes it impossible for any insurer to give the option of selling a separate rider to individual women.

That, my friends, is what we call a grade-A cluster fuck.

It is hard to say whether the politicians knew and just didn’t care that the bill clashes with the federal healthcare law; however, it is easy to confirm who pays the price. Michigan women have only one option: pay that abortion fee.

—

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Click here to read the original post published December 5, 2013.

Happy almost Friday, folks! This week is almost over. THANK GOODNESS. Coming back after a holiday is rough, am I right?

If you have a uterus and you live in Michigan, your week has been especially rough. Shit is getting REAL over there in the Mid-West. Lawmakers in the Great Lakes State are currently debating a bill that would require women to buy rape insurance.

That’s right. Rape insurance.

I tell you, this shit just gets more ridiculous every week I write about it. It’s actually insane.

Here’s how it’s going down. Lawmakers in Michigan don’t want health insurance to cover abortion. Why? They’re not fans of a woman’s right to choose, and so, while they can’t completely outlaw abortion, they can use insurance technicalities to restrict women’s options.

What happens when insurance doesn’t cover abortions? Women either have babies that they don’t want or are unable to carry, or they pay a hefty price to terminate. Obviously, not ideal. So! While Wolverine legislators were batting around this nifty little bill, the same question came up that always comes up when we start talking about restricting women’s access to abortions.

“But what about cases of rape and incest?!” Because, empathy. For like, five seconds.

The legislators of Michigan had an answer ready and waiting. Make women buy additional insurance to cover the possibility of needing an abortion in the future.

This little tidbit prompted Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to veto the bill last year when it was first introduced. He wasn’t too keen on legislation that required women to pay for abortions out of pocket, unless of course, they had paid extra for that separate insurance rider. “I don’t believe it is appropriate to tell a woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape that she needed to select elective insurance coverage,” Snyder said when he rejected the bill last winter.

Well, duh. Obviously.

That would be like telling a man who had a heart attack that he couldn’t have life-saving surgery, because he didn’t plan ahead and book an operating room beforehand. Or like telling a cancer patient that she can’t receive treatment because she hadn’t reserved a chemo supply ahead of time. Plan ahead, people, be prepared! For all of the possible things that could happen to you ever! (Because that’s possible.)

Folks, let’s get one thing straight. No one plans to get an abortion. Needing one is definitely not a desirable situation to be in. Really, abortions are a last resort. An emergency measure, taken after something has unintentionally gone wrong. Maybe she got raped. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe she forgot to take her birth control pill that day. Maybe she just discovered that the baby won’t survive the pregnancy or infanthood.

Whatever the situation, abortions are last ditch efforts to rectify a bad situation that wasn’t planned for. So asking women to plan for unplanned emergencies — and be monetarily penalized either way — makes absolutely no sense.

It’s about as logical as this guy.

But, alas, the anti-choicers think it does make sense, and they’ve got a rage-inducing argument as to why that is. One prominent advocate of the bill claimed that rape is like a car accident, and it was totally fine to make women pay for extra insurance in order to prepare for it.

This is so incredibly gross on so many levels.

First of all, we’re comparing women’s bodies to cars right now. To cars. Inanimate objects that can be damaged, fixed, or replaced. One car is much like another—it gets you from A to B. Women’s bodies are not like cars. They are not replaceable. Their value doesn’t depreciate after a traumatic event. They are not interchangeable. They are not for you to use.

Actually, women’s bodies are attached to living, breathing, human beings. They happen to have vaginas. But they also have lives, passions, emotions, and agency. And when you liken their bodies being raped to a car being crashed, you ignore the human involved in the trauma. You assume she’s an object, instead of a subject.

Stop that right now.

Second of all, expecting women to prepare themselves for rape is absurd and cruel.

Preparation assumes the inevitable. You prepare for a car accident—if we’re going to follow through with this terrible example—because being involved in one, someday, is more or less inevitable. People are stupid. Let a bunch of idiots operate heavy machinery near each other, and things are bound to go wrong eventually. Better prepare yourself for the asshole who forgot to use his blinker and caused a pileup on the freeway.

But rape? That shouldn’t be inevitable. Rape doesn’t happen because of human error. Rape isn’t something that idiots do. Rape happens when one person makes a conscious decision to violate another person. Consent isn’t given. Accidents aren’t made. This isn’t an “oops I didn’t mean to get sexually violent with you, my bad,” kind of situation.

Not at all.

When we treat rape like it is inevitable, we give rapists a free pass. We’re sending them the message that, hey, you’re only human! People make mistakes. No big deal. But it is a big deal. And it wasn’t a mistake. This isn’t like forgetting to use your blinker, or running a red light. This is violence and coercion. And there’s always another option.

So, to all the anti-choicers of Michigan, I have a question for you: If a man was shot, and he had to pay out of pocket to have the bullet removed because he hadn’t planned ahead with elective murder insurance, how would you feel about that?

Probably like this kid.

Not so good, I’m guessing. Because it’s ridiculous to ask a man to prepare himself for the possibility that one day, he might be a homicide victim. No one expects to be on the receiving end of that kind of violence.

So stop asking women to do the same. We don’t need to prepare for our impending rape. We shouldn’t be waiting expectantly, insurance policy in hand, to be the victims of sexual violence. And we sure as hell aren’t cool with legislators putting a price tag on our uteruses.

So, stop it, OK? Just stop it.

Stop restricting our access to safe abortions. Stop legislating our bodies. Stop objectifying us. And stop being so cavalier when it comes to rape.

Do you think the GOP can handle that, folks? Discuss!

—

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 [ProgressOhio via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fail of the Week: Michigan’s Rape Insurance Law appeared first on Law Street.

Loves, the conservaturds are at it again.

Conservative pundit and asshole extraordinaire Ann Coulter decided to use her considerable star power for the greater good this week. Harnessing the power of social media, she took to Twitter to show support for her fellow human beings, advocating an end to gender-based violence and oppression around the world.

LOL JUST KIDDING.

Did I have you going for a second there?

Probably not! Because unless you live in an actual cave, you know that Ann Coulter is probably the least positive person in the history of political pundits.

Thank goodness this lady is just a culture maker and not a legislator. That would make her even more horrifying than she already is (which is saying a lot).

So, since we’ve established that the woman infamous for condoning the murder of abortionists, reversing women’s suffrage, and “perfecting” Jews (I literally cannot) isn’t using her Twitter account to spread peace and light throughout the social media universe, let’s talk about what she IS using it for.

This jerk is using it to mock Malala Yousafzai’s Twitter campaign to #BringBackOurGirls.

#Malala stands in solidarity with Nigerians & people everywhere calling for action to #BringBackOurGirls pic.twitter.com/woAjreav0W

— Malala Fund (@MalalaFund) May 4, 2014

Last week, I wrote about the 300 girls in the Nigerian village of Chibok who were abducted from school, OF ALL PLACES, and are now being sold into sexual, marital slavery for a few dollars a pop by Boko Haram, an Islamist fundamentalist group.   That’s what Malala’s #BringBackOurGirls campaign is all about. It’s about raising awareness of a wildly, disgustingly awful human rights violation that’s happening in Nigeria right now. It’s about starting conversations around the world about gender-based violence and oppression. And of course, it’s about drawing attention to a grossly under-reported story that deserves way more attention than it’s currently receiving.   Basically, Malala wants women not to be abducted and sold into slavery. And when they are, she demands that it be stopped. Ann Coulter does the opposite. In response to Malala’s #BringBackOurGirls campaign, Ms. Coulter tweeted this:

My hashtag contribution to world affairs … pic.twitter.com/Wkb8ozYZFC — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) May 12, 2014

#BringBackOurCountry.

Ann Coulter, you officially win The Worst Person on Twitter Award. I literally cannot with you and your vomit-inducing shenanigans.

What country, exactly, Ms. Coulter, are you looking to bring back? One where its citizens don’t care when girls are targets for violence because they’re receiving an education? One where women are abducted, beaten, raped, sold like cattle — and no one bats an eye?

Because that’s all you’re advocating when you turn a call to bring abducted women home safely into a warped, twisted statement about how fucked up our country is. The United States may not look the way you want it to look — being all full of Jews and voting women and abortionists and whatnot — but this is not an appropriate way to express your distaste.

Not even a little bit.

Luckily, the legions of Twitter users are in agreement, and they’re restoring our collective faith in humanity. With a magical little tool called Photoshop, folks who DON’T think saving abducted Nigerian women is a cause to shit all over, taught Ann Coulter a lesson.

And it’s awesome.

Here are some of the best Ann Coulter-Photoshop-Takedowns. Scroll through and rejoice in the wonderfulness that can still exist in the world, right alongside the bile of people like Ann Coulter.

@CletisStump @Kalaax008 What Coulter does for a ‘living’. pic.twitter.com/pWz1LiDZnn

— ⒿⓄⓁⓉⒾⓃ ⒿⓄⒺ (@fullofbalogna) May 12, 2014

Wildly accurate.

Man, sometimes I’m shocked by the shit @AnnCoulter says for attention. pic.twitter.com/m3QnG2ZJhr — Atchka! (@atchka) May 12, 2014

Wouldn’t that be magical?

Thanks for calling Ann Coulter, and all of her conservaturd followers, on their bullshit, Internet. We love you. Keep fighting the good fight.

—

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

Featured Image Courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post Ann Coulter Destroys Our Faith in Humanity, Sassy Twitter Users Restore It appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, how many of you are John Green fans? I hope every single one of you raised your hand. He’s basically perfection.

Not only does he write awesome books, but he also posts weekly vlogs on YouTube with his brother, Hank. The two of them cover everything from goofy details about their daily lives to politics and religion. And they do it HYSTERICALLY. Seriously, I never knew I could be so entertained while watching a video about the American healthcare system.

Anyway! One of John Green’s wonderful books, The Fault in Our Stars, has been made into a feature film. It’s hitting theaters next month and stars Shailene Woodley.

So much gorgeousness is happening here, you guys.

Shailene is pretty awesome, making some queer-ish, feminist-y comments about love being independent from gender, doubting our society’s obsession with marriage and monogamy, coming down on Twilight for promoting an unhealthy and abusive relationship dynamic, and advocating for more nuanced, kickass roles for women in movies.

She’s pretty rad.

But! Shailene was recently asked if she identifies as a feminist. And she said no. Cue collective exasperated sigh of disappointment.

Why is this apparently feminist star eschewing the feminist label? Because, it seems, she doesn’t actually understand what being a feminist means.

“No,” said Woodley, when asked if she considered herself a feminist, “because I love men.” She went on to say that feminism means giving undue power to women at the expense of men, an arrangement that wouldn’t be beneficial to anyone.

But, see, that’s not what feminism is. That’s not what it means. Not even a little bit. Feminists aren’t power hungry man-haters looking to depose men from their porcelain thrones of fragile masculinity. We’re not looking to climb over the men, flip the oppression coin, and unfairly win some sort of gender pissing contest where vagina-bearers come out on top.

Feminists are people who come in all shapes, sizes, and genders — some of them are men, go figure! — who believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Just ask Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the TEDx talker who came up with this perfectly coined definition of feminism. This isn’t power grabbing. This isn’t renewed, rearranged sexism.

Feminism is a commitment to ending gender-based oppression. And that’s something that both men and women will benefit from.

Because, let’s be real. We live in a world where gender-based oppression is a huge fucking deal. There’s so much of it, in fact, that every week I’m swamped with potential stories to cover here on The F Word. My email inbox is consistently flooded with article recommendations from friends, family members, and coworkers, all alerting me to the latest crazy incident of racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit to hit the airwaves. There’s always too much to cover on any given day.

This week, for example, we’ve got Monica Lewinsky. Vanity Fair has debuted an exclusive essay by Lewinsky, breaking her decade-long silence regarding her past as the White House whore. “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress,” she writes, going on to express her deep regret and remorse for her affair with former President Bill Clinton — which, she insists, was totally consensual.

But does consent really exist between an intern in her early 20s and her boss — a man who’s not only twice her age, but who’s also the President of the United States? The leader of the motherfucking free world asks you for a blow job, and what do you do? Report him to human resources?

I feel like the U.S. military’s Commander in Chief probably pulls rank on that one, no?

Yes, yes he does.

We live in a world where the man who abused his position of power to score sex from a hot, 20-something staffer, is now getting paid millions of dollars in speaking engagements. Meanwhile, his well-educated, exceptionally capable whore has been unable to land a full-time job ever, AT ALL, because of her “history,” a media sensation that’s transformed her from a person into a joke.

This is a world that needs feminism.

Then, we’ve got Emily Letts, an abortion counselor at a clinic in New Jersey who filmed her surgical abortion and posted it online, to show other women that “there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.”

The short video, featured below, is not graphic or violent, shows only the top half of Letts’ body, and focuses on her emotional and physical experience during the procedure. As a counselor, Letts wanted to share her experience to diffuse some of the frightening misinformation surrounding abortions, modeling one possible solution to a very personal, complicated situation.

Letts’ video and her accompanying essay for Cosmopolitan are helping women across the country come to safe, informed decisions about how to handle an unexpected pregnancy. They’re also helping to chip away at the deeply ingrained stigma our country holds against women who take control of their bodies and reproductive systems.

We live in a world where those are two goals that cause a huge chunk of the United States to respond with anger and vitriol, calling Letts a Godless Baby Slaughterer Witch from Hell. I give it about five minutes before death threats start rolling in.

This is a world that needs feminism.

And then, we’ve got 300 girls in the Nigerian village of Chibok who were abducted from school, OF ALL PLACES, and are now being sold into sexual, marital slavery for a few dollars a pop by Boko Haram, an Islamist fundamentalist group.

#Malala stands in solidarity with Nigerians & people everywhere calling for action to #BringBackOurGirls pic.twitter.com/woAjreav0W

— Malala Fund (@MalalaFund) May 4, 2014

These girls, who range in age from 9 to 15 years old, haven’t been found, which is SHOCKING considering how little media or political attention their abductions have warranted. (Please re-read that sentence and multiply the sarcasm factor by infinity.) And why were they abducted? Because Boko Haram is opposed to women in Nigeria receiving Western educations.

That’s right, folks. We live in a world where girls are violently denied educations and sold into slavery — all while making fewer headlines than Kimye.

This world needs feminism so badly that I have to come up with creative ways to squeeze multiple stories into a single blog post — and I never manage to cover them all. It needs feminism so badly that I had an entire post written about this racist, sexist,  douchebag extraordinaire from Princeton who’s not apologizing for his white privilege, and I SCRAPPED it, because there were too many other stories that were even more important to cover this week.

So, to Shailene Woodley, and to all the other people in the world who are hesitant or unwilling to adopt the feminist identity, please listen.

Feminism is not man-hating. Feminism is not power-grabbing. Feminism is not dangerous, destructive, or harmful.

Feminism is empathy. Feminism is self-love, and love for your fellow human beings. Feminism is working to end the oppression of all people — men, women, queers, people of color, poor people, disabled people — so that all of us can live happier, healthier lives.

Being a feminist means that you believe in social, political, and economic equality between the sexes. Being a feminist means you believe in ending oppression.

And sadly, this column is proof that there aren’t enough of us.

So, please, get next to feminism. Feminists are changing the world for the better. And we need you.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Mingle MediaTV via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear appeared first on Law Street.

The NRA Convention happened last weekend, folks! And you know what that means.

LOTS of ridiculousness for us to talk about.

Specifically, the ridiculousness that Sarah Palin was spewing. When she addressed the cheering crowd of gun enthusiasts, she made a wildly offensive comment equating torture with Christian indoctrination.

“They obviously have information on plots to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them. You can’t make them feel uncomfortable. Not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Oh sure, Sarah, that’s great. Let’s torture people and call it baptism. Because that’s not problematic AT ALL.

A lot of people, conservatives included, are pretty scandalized by this latest sound bite from the Conservative Queen of Ridiculous Sound Bites. She’s talked nonsense about President Obama being a socialist, plotting to plunge the U.S. into a quagmire of evil Communism. She’s said some weird and totally untrue things about death panels being a part of the Affordable Care Act. Not to mention, she’s been unable to pinpoint any specific news publications that she reads, or to be completely in control of the English language — “refudiate” and “misunderestimate” are cases in point.

But! Despite the fact that we should all be totally used to Sarah Palin spewing nonsense, she really outdid herself this time.

Even Lucy is shocked.

Let’s start with the most glaring and obvious issue here — Palin is talking about TORTURE. This isn’t an enhanced interrogation method. This isn’t even fucking legal.

Waterboarding is torture.

And she’s talking about it pretty fucking brazenly. She’s blasé about it, really. Palin talks about torturing people with the same folksy, nonchalant charm that won her a spot on the presidential ticket back in 2008. She could be talking about her kid’s hockey game, for cryin’ out loud.

But she’s not. She’s talking about subjecting human beings to the experience of simulated drowning.

And that’s really disturbing. When a person can talk about torturing other people with such ease, it makes you wonder what they’re really capable of. And I’m not the only one who’s wondering.

The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf brings up an important point—what happens if the wrong Republican gets elected? Will the United States revert back to its Bush Era, barbaric ways? Will torture become the norm once again? What else will become the norm?

Potentially, a lot of scary things. Keep in mind, Palin is a self-professed, devout Christian. She’s a woman who claims to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ — a prophet who preached peace and love above all else. I mean, let’s be real. Dude was the original hippy, am I right?

Yup.

So if she can justify torture — even when she follows a religion that, at its core, preaches peace — what else can she justify?

For starters, she can justify a blatant disrespect for the religion that she claims to cling to so tightly. Her conflation of waterboarding with baptism has been received with a lot of insult and outrage by many in the Christian community. Rod Dreher, the editor of the American Conservative, even termed the comparison “sacrilegious.”

So what are we left with? Sarah Palin has proven herself time and time again to be a lightning rod for controversy. She says crazy things. She does weird shit like deviate from her political career to star on reality shows. She gets a lot of flak.

And some of that flak isn’t well deserved. There’s always been an element of misogyny to the criticism hurled at Palin. The world collectively freaked out when she was announced as John McCain’s running mate back in 2008 — and not because she was wildly unqualified — but because she was a woman, a former beauty queen, a mother of five children. How can she be a heartbeat away from the presidency, the country asked, but not always for the right reasons.

But now? We’re left with a woman who talks about violence with reckless abandon. Who preaches her own religious and political views dogmatically, without actually following them herself. Who panders to crowds of gun-enthusiasts who cheer her on when she talks about torture.

That shit’s dangerous. So what’ll happen if the wrong Republican gets elected?

It’s impossible to say — but one thing’s for sure. Nothing good happens when you give people with a penchant for violence and self-righteousness the keys to the kingdom.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post Can We Maybe Not Condone Torture, Sarah Palin? appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon folks! How many of you are David Choe fans?

He’s a pretty fascinating dude. A Korean-American hailing from Los Angeles, Choe is an artist, an author, a reality TV star, a podcast host, and he’s spent time in prison. He got his start as a graffiti artist in LA — an angsty, rebellious teenager if ever there was one. He dropped out of high school, spent a few years traveling the world as a hitchhiker, and then returned to spend a few years in formal art school.

Since then, he’s gone on to become a wildly successful and subversive artist. Facebook commissioned him to paint murals in their first Silicon Valley office, making him a millionaire when they paid him in stock options instead of cash. Now, Choe’s work graces every Facebook office, as well as the White House. He stars in a Vice show called “Thumbs Up!” that documents his life as he hitchhikes all over the place, and he hosts a podcast with porn star Asa Akira where they talk about sexy things. Plus — added bonus — he’s a ballin’ gambler who did jail time in Japan for punching a security guard. Truth.

Lovers of bad boys, rejoice. David Choe is kind of your dream. He’s artsy, he’s rebellious, he can’t deal with authority figures, and his entire career is like a giant middle-finger to the concept of respectable and gainful employment.

But don’t get too excited. Because dude doesn’t seem to understand the concept of enthusiastic consent.

In a recent podcast, Choe recounted an eyebrow-raising sexual experience to his cohost, Akira, that he says he had with a masseuse called “Rose.” The podcast went relatively unnoticed — WHY THAT IS I DON’T KNOW (throwing shade at you, patriarchal rape culture that doesn’t bat an eye at this shit) — until xoJane unearthed it and asked the Internet a giant WTF. Thank you, xoJane, for being awesome. You win the Internet this week.

According to Choe’s own account (which he has since stated was an extension of his art and not fact), he was getting a massage and started masturbating right there in front of Rose, without asking her or informing her of his intent to turn this massage into a sexual experience. Here’s how he described the incident:

“It’s dangerous and it’s super self-destructive. I’m at a place and there’s potential for a lawsuit… and she has given me no signs that she’s into me or that this is appropriate behavior. In my head I go, Do you care if I jerk off right now? and it sounds so creepy in my head that I go I can’t say that out loud … So I go back to the chill method of you never ask first, you just do it, get in trouble and then pay the price later.

…So then her hands get off my leg and she just stops … I go ‘Look I’m sorry I can’t help myself — can you just pretend like I’m not doing this and you continue with the massage?’ And she’s like ‘All right’ and she does … I’m like ‘Can I touch your butt?’ and I reach out and touch her butt and she pulls away. She doesn’t want me to touch her butt.”

OK dude, so you should stop it. When someone doesn’t want you to make sexual advances, you need to stop making them. Obviously. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

His cohost, Asa, picked up on that little detail, and clearly says to him in response to this awful story, “So, you raped her.”

He responds:

“With the rape stuff…I mean, I would have been in a lot of trouble right now if I put her hand on my dick and she’s like “F**king stop I’m gonna go call security.” That would have been a much different story. But the thrill of possibly going to jail, that’s what achieved the erection quest.”

So by his own account, this is a guy who describes getting off by pushing someone to do something she’s not comfortable doing. That’s the personification of rape culture, folks. It’s a culture where women’s bodies are viewed as objects, as property to be handled and exploited. Women don’t have to say yes for other people to feel entitled to us, and even when we say no, it’s often not enough.

Whether or not Choe is confessing to actual rape, he describes knowingly pushing Rose to do things she said no to. And that’s really, really not OK.

Folks, rape doesn’t always look the same. There are lots of different ways to rape someone, or to be raped. It doesn’t have to be a strange man in a dark alley. It doesn’t have to be someone who beats you. It doesn’t have to be someone who’s got a knife to your throat.

Sometimes rape is less dramatic. Sometimes it’s a partner who doesn’t take no for an answer. Sometimes it’s a person who takes advantage of you when you’re disempowered. And sometimes, it’s a random creep in a massage studio.

None of these things are, or ever will be, OK. No means no, David Choe. Fucking stop it.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [jm3 on Flickr via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post No Means No, David Choe appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon folks! Now that our collective excitement over the Blood Moon has subsided and the moon has returned to its normal, non-bloody state, we’re going to take some time to talk about everyone’s favorite things. Rush Limbaugh wants them to stop staring at him, and Microsoft wants them to keep you from getting fat. You know where I’m going with this.

We’re talking about boobs this morning.

High school student Megan Grassel is the world’s latest boob-centric entrepreneur, having recently opened a small business called Yellowberry, which allegedly sells non-sexual bras for young girls.

Megan got the idea for the lovely little company when she took her baby sister bra shopping. According to Megan, she was “appalled” by the selection of bras available for her sister’s age group. Filled with push-up padding and covered in sequins, she found the bra selection to be hypersexual and totally inappropriate for her tweenaged sister.

So, like any budding entrepreneur, Megan saw a business opportunity. She recognized a gap in the market — non-sexual bras for younger girls, according to her — and she decided to fill it. One uber-successful Kickstarter campaign later, Yellowberry was born. The company sells neon-colored cotton bras, with no padding or sequins, aimed at girls between 11 and 15 years old. At $42.95 a pop, the store has already sold out. Megan’s a one-woman business success.

Now, before anything else, let’s talk about how this is pretty awesome on a bunch of levels. Women-owned businesses are awesome. Products that are made by and for women are awesome. Megan’s entrepreneurial spirit, smarts, and business acumen are super impressive and I applaud her for it.

However.

Let’s talk about the reason why she started Yellowberry in the first place.

Megan was freaked out by the bras that existed in the market. She deemed padding and sequins too sexual. But what if you’re just a fan of sequin-covered, sparkly, happy things? What about sequins makes bras sexual? What about padding?

The fact that bras are used to cover and support breasts. The breasts themselves are what make bras sexual. Not the fact that they’re covered in sequins. Not the fact that they’re padded. Taken alone, those facts are just descriptors added onto a piece of cloth and (maybe) wire. But Megan and her thoughts on how breasts should and shouldn’t be presented are what sexualized those bras.

And that’s kind of an issue. While Megan’s busy being appalled at how inappropriate these padded, sequined bras are, she’s simultaneously demonizing young girls who might like to wear them.

There’s an element of slut-shaming here, and a fear around the concept of adolescent sexuality. If these bras are so disgustingly hypersexual, what does that say about the girl who chooses to sport it? Presumably, that she’s some kind of oversexed harlot — not just a girl who might think sequins are fun.

Clearly, glitter is the best.

Folks, I know what it’s like to be an oversexed young girl. I started growing boobs when I was in fourth grade. Everyone — from the kids in school right down to my own parents — couldn’t wrap their heads around the fact that I was young and had breasts.

They were discussed at length. What I could wear because of them, what I couldn’t wear because of them, how I should stand, where I should go, who I should talk to. My breasts were simultaneously an asset and a huge threat. They made me cool. They made me slutty. They made me precocious and dangerous and fast.

So whenever anyone starts getting anxious about young girls and how overly sexual their breasts are, I get concerned.

What are we really saying to our teenaged girls when we shame them for wanting to wear padded, sequined bras? What message are we sending when a bra store called Yellowberry pops up, whose existence is a direct reaction to societal anxieties around adolescent breasts and sexuality?

We’re saying that young women, their bodies, and their sexualities are threatening. Their breasts need to be tamed. Their sexuality needs to be managed and contained.

So, Megan Grassel, I applaud your entrepreneurship and your colorful, no-frills bras. But I hope you’ll reevaluate your motivation for making them.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Ralf Roletschek via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post How Feminist Is Your Bra? appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate shot down debate on paycheck fairness 53-44 today. Sixty votes are necessary to overcome cloture on the matter. While Democrats and Republicans are using the issue as a political ploy for the midterm elections, there are American women who are waiting for their paychecks to become, if not equal to, as close as possible to the pay grade of their male counterparts. The actual act in question would have closed loopholes seen in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that aimed to close the gap between male and female wages in the first place. This issue has been contentious for that long, and is not a modern phenomena.

What Congress was attempting to do with this new bill is protect employees from being punished for sharing salary information with their peers, a practice some businesses employ in order to avoid workplace unrest. Such a situation gave way to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which resets the 180-day statute of limitations on gender discrimination with each paycheck given to the aggrieved employee. On top of not being allowed to stop their employees from sharing their salary information, businesses have to show that the pay disparity between two employees is due to performance, and not their gender. Critics of the Paycheck Fairness Act claim that this would open floodgates for lawyers to litigate a slew of discrimination cases. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on Wednesday, “[T]his legislation would double down on job loss all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers.” Supporters may counter that the requirement for businesses to show the reasons behind pay disparity only clears up the situation and can strengthen the position of the employer.

While Congress is stuck debating paycheck fairness for women, the President took matters into his own hands yesterday with two executive orders. On the eve of news that New York City has a pay disparity of 88 cents for every dollar earned between women and men, President Barack Obama signed an executive order mandating that federal contractors report salaries by gender. The other executive order would make it easy for other agencies or contractors to access this data. “Pay secrecy fosters discrimination, and we should not tolerate it, not in federal contracting or anywhere else,” the President said as he signed the orders. Currently, the sound bite being spread around by politicians is that the wage gap between women and men is 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. According to the Pew Research Center, this only accounts for full-time workers. When you account for full-time and part-time workers, the wage gap is more likely to be 84 percent of what men earn, and the gap narrows even more for young women – 93 percent.

As the rhetorical war over paycheck fairness continues, pay attention to the hand-picked figures used by both parties in a year when a lot of Congressional jobs are on the line. Despite the various attempts at closing the wage gap between the two genders, it will be a long time before we see serious progress. As the Pew Research Center points out, women will have to work more in order to cover the gap — yet this does not account for maternity leave or the specific types of labor that skew toward a male demographic, such as construction and other labor-intensive tasks. One thing is clear — the debate is not over, even if it was shot down in Congress.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Martijn Schornagel via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paycheck Fairness Act Fails in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, women’s access to safe abortion services is circling the drain. Between 2011 and 2013, state lawmakers passed more restrictions on abortion than they in the last decade combined.

That’s right. In two years, more abortion restrictions were passed than in the previous ten. That’s some serious shit.

It’s looking like this is going to be a trend that continues into 2014, so let’s take a moment and remind all the anti-choicers out there what actually happens when you prevent women from accessing safe abortions. HINT: They do not get fewer abortions.

1. They seek unsafe abortions.

Cue gasps all around — what’s the first thing women who can’t access safe abortions do? They go find unsafe abortions. Women duck into back alley, sketch-tastic, unsterile abortion clinics for the privilege of having some hack rough up their insides. Often, that same hack will rape her.

Regardless of how much her insides are at risk for getting raped and destroyed, a woman who wants an abortion will still go get one, even if it’s illegal and unsafe. This is reality, conservaturds. Wrap your heads around it.

2. They buy abortion pills on the black market.

Can’t find a dirty sketchball to perform your abortion? No problem. There are plenty of safe, effective abortion pills you can take in the comfort of your own home.

Except! Prescriptions for these pills must be administered by an abortion provider — so if you can’t find one, you’re shit out of luck. Unless, of course, you make an appearance on the black market. Desperate and optionless women are buying these pills on the black market every day, but many of them are counterfeit, rendering them useless at best and harmful at worst. Not to mention, these abortion pills are a bit complicated to administer. Take them incorrectly, and you’ll find yourself in the emergency room.

Again, these risks are stopping no one. Abortions continue to happen.

3. They cross borders to get unsafe abortions.

Don’t have an abortion provider in your city, county, or state? Cross the border into a less anti-feminist state! Or, better yet, head to Mexico. Except abortions are really hard to access wherever you’re headed as well, most likely, and so there’s a good chance you’ll end up in an unsafe situation anyway.

And now, you’re further from home, still at risk for assault or procedure botching, and you’re out a whole bunch more money because traveling is expensive.

Once again, abortions continue to happen.

4. They deliberately harm themselves to induce a miscarriage.
Out come the coat hangers! Seriously, though, women will resort to deliberately getting punched in the stomach, beaten up, or thrown down the stairs in order to induce a miscarriage. Clearly, this is not a very safe or reliable way to self-abort. No one cares. It still happens.

5. They wind up unable to conceive later.

This detail is like a goody bag extra, because botched abortions are just the gift that keeps on giving! When women terminate pregnancies using any of the unsafe methods listed above, they often wind up with serious, permanent damage to their reproductive systems. That means chronic health issues, and often, the inability to conceive when they do actually want to have babies.

This is the definition of not having control over your own body — being forced to have a child when you don’t want to, facing injury or death if you choose to defy that directive, and being unable to bear children when you do want to as a consequential punishment.

This shit happened all the time before Roe v. Wade, and as more and more restrictions are placed on that landmark ruling, it’s continuing to happen with increasing frequency today.

To all the anti-choice agitators and conservative lawmakers who’d like to take away a woman’s right to choose, please note:

Denying women access to safe abortions DOES NOT reduce the number of abortions that happen. Those fetuses you’re so concerned about will still be aborted. All it does is put the women who carry them at greater risk for injury or death. Abortions will happen with or without your legal blessing, Right-wing legislators. Consider this your reality check.

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post 5 Things That Happen When Women Can’t Access Safe Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

As a young woman, I have been inundated with advice on how to dress myself appropriately for a professional situation for years now. My first introduction to professional dress was in high school when I did Model UN. We competed at tournaments around the East Coast a few times a year, and every time we were told to wear “Western Business Attire.” For boys, that was easy. They had to wear khakis or suit pants with a button down and tie, with maybe a sports jacket. But for us girls, it was different. The guidelines were clear, but finding clothes that were appropriate and still cute were difficult. We occasionally got in trouble for wearing skirts that were too tight or short, but we still talked about other girls’ inappropriate club-like dresses with a certain sense of satisfaction.

In college, it got even worse. I compete in intercollegiate mock trial, where formality is even more intense. Girls wear suits in grey, black, or navy; collared shirts; conservative heels; and pantyhose. I make younger members of my team show me their outfits before we compete. I do this because I have received comments about my appearance before — my skirts are too short, or my sleeves are too long, or I chose the wrong color blouse.

And as it turns out, the pressure doesn’t change when you make it into the legal profession, because we hear things about women needing to dress more appropriately for court all the damn time.

A few weeks ago, Loyola Law School sent out a memo about female students dressing appropriately at their jobs or internships. The school’s externship director wrote, “I really don’t need to mention that cleavage and stiletto heels are not appropriate office wear (outside of ridiculous lawyer TV shows), do I? Yet I’m getting complaints from supervisors.” Last fall, law firm Clifford Chance sent out a lovely memo detailing how exactly women should dress — and act, and speak, and breathe, but that’s besides the point. (If you missed it, by the way, definitely read Hannah Winsten’s takedown on that memo.) Some of the tips were real winners: “Understated jewelry, nothing jingly or clanky.” “Don’t dress like a mortician: if wearing a black suit, wear something bright.” “If wearing a scarf, make sure it stays tied.”

These are by no means isolated incidents. In fact they’re more common than you probably think. And they’ve once again started a debate about what female lawyers should be wearing, who is allowed to comment on their dress, and why we care. So as someone who someday hopes to be a female lawyer, here are three things I think we all need to keep in mind.

3. ‘Lady in the streets, freak in the sheets,’ anyone? 

This entire thing reminds me of that saying, because that’s what women are taught. Women are expected to dress conservatively in the courtroom, but still retain femininity. They’re expected to be professional in the work place, but not dress too masculine — after all pantsuits have only become acceptable for women in the last couple decades. Think about how women and men dress up throughout their young lives in Western culture. Little boys wear little suits to say, a cousin’s wedding. Girls wear puffy, pink frocks. Young men wear nice suits or tuxes to prom. Girls wear ball gowns. Men wear tuxes to their wedding. Women wear gigantic white dresses.

For every single part of our lives, we’re taught that different things are acceptable, while men wear essentially variations on the exact same outfit. And that’s because women are taught that their roles are different at each of those events. At prom, be a princess. At your wedding, be a pure virgin. In court, be strong and masculine.

2. Pop culture and societal pressure.

Think about youngish female lawyers on TV and in movies. They’re all gorgeous. We have Reese Witherspoon’s immortalized portrayal of Elle Woods in Legally Blonde. Casey Novak, played by Diane Neal on Law & Order: SVU. Calista Flockhart’s Ally McBeal.

The only way female lawyers are ever portrayed otherwise is the sort of elder stateswoman type, but still incredibly attractive. Think Diane Lockhart in The Good Wife, for example.

Now, it is pretty fair to say that everyone on TV and in Hollywood is attractive. But the men on legal shows usually wear pretty basic suits. The women wear incredibly expensive and well tailored outfits, all beautifully put together. This just continues to propagate the issue of balance. Most women don’t look like the fictional lawyers we see on TV, and that’s completely okay. But that fine line between feminine and too sexy, or between professional and stuffy is not helped by the images of female lawyers in the media.

1. Apparently men can’t control themselves. 

Now, women should dress appropriately in the courtroom. There are  no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It takes some effort, but it’s not that hard. I absolutely judge grown women who cannot dress themselves appropriately. When you walk into a courtroom, you need to impress the judge, and you need to impress the jury. But judges are mostly men — women usually make up roughly 1/3 of the bench. But one of the big issues, as XoJane points out, is that women’s clothing in the courtroom is not standardized the way men’s suits are. Every judge has a preference: “Some never want to see pants, for example, while others abhor specific hemlines or colors.”

And some of these male judges say BS, like District Judge Richard Kopf. He recently published a blog post in which he described how he leers at one of the attractive young women around the courthouse, and suggested, “You can’t win. Men are both pigs and prudes. Get over it.”

I can win. I can look professional, despite all the ridiculous double standards that abound in women’s clothing choices. But that doesn’t mean that I have to get over the fact that I’m held to those double standards. Why do I have to accept that a male judge is either going to mock me for being too frumpy, or eye me for being too sexy? And, most importantly, why in this day and age do we focus more on how smart, capable women dress than what they say?

So new rule, everyone. Let’s all dress appropriately…and all treat each other like respectable human beings. Deal?

—

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 [Martijn Schornagel 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 Three Reasons to STFU About Female Lawyers’ Clothes appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, folks! Time for your weekly dosage of anti-feminist bullshit! On the menu today is Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation owned by a family of religious zealots that doesn’t want to cover your birth control.

Also, it doesn’t want any other employer-sponsored health insurance to cover your birth control either.

So, keep your legs closed?

I know, I know, conservatives bat this shit around all the goddamn time. They’re constantly challenging a woman’s right to choose, trying to flip or amend the shit out of Roe v. Wade to resurrect the age of the coat hanger, slash birth control coverage, nix preventive care exams, and pretty much destroy all the basic healthcare measures that are associated with vaginas.

And so far, they haven’t managed to deny all of us some modicum of control over our own bodies. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a blue state with a decent level of economic privilege are still visiting the OB-GYN each year. But.

Hobby Lobby is making us really fucking nervous.

This obnoxious fuck of a company is suing the Department of Health and Human Services on the grounds that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act infringes on their constitutional right to religious freedom. According to Hobby Lobby, since they’re owned by devout Christians, their health insurance benefits shouldn’t have to cover contraception for employees.

To make this even more awesome, Hobby Lobby is basing these claims on some crap-tastic pseudo-science about “abortifacients.” The company is already covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA, but is holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception, and two forms of emergency birth control.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims they’re making about those devices, none of them are abortion pills. Which, for the record, are totally on the market and widely used. These just aren’t them.

Literally no one is a fan of this lawsuit.

For all the people who are in favor of women controlling their own bodies and sexual health, this is obviously some bullshit. Birth control and emergency contraception are basic tools that allow women to maintain their sexual health and control their destinies. Those are rights that shouldn’t be up for debate.

But what’s really surprising is who else isn’t a fan of this suit.

The entire business world.

That’s right! All the rich, conservative, white men who run the United States’ Fortune 500 companies have failed to file a single amicus brief in Hobby Lobby’s favor. They’re just as freaked out by this attempt at religious discrimination as feminists are.

Why? Because it would fuck shit up, business-wise.

Hobby Lobby’s case is built on the argument that a corporation isn’t separate from its owners. By their logic, since Hobby Lobby is owned by devout Christians, the company itself is also a devoutly Christian entity whose religious freedoms can be violated. This move conflates the business and its owners, making them one in the same.

And that’s really dangerous for business owners all across the country. The Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have filed a ton of amicus briefs opposing Hobby Lobby, citing how important it is to keep corporations separate from their owners.

This principle is called the “corporate veil,” and essentially, it protects its owners from liability. Since a corporation has a different set of rights and obligations than its owners, an owner can’t be held personally responsible for a company oversight, and vice versa.

But Hobby Lobby wants to have it both ways. They’d like to hang on to that liability protection, while simultaneously doing whatever the fuck they want.

So, at the end of the day, this lawsuit is a problem for everyone. It’s a problem for business owners who don’t want the corporate veil to get ripped to shreds. It’s a problem for women — specifically those employed at Hobby Lobby — who need their birth control to be covered under their health insurance. It’s also a problem for literally anyone whose behavior or existence violates someone’s religious beliefs.

If Hobby Lobby wins this suit, it would set a precedent that could make widespread discrimination totally legal. If the owner of a restaurant doesn’t like gay people, he or she can refuse to serve them. If a doctor doesn’t like abortion, he or she can refuse to prescribe birth control. If a landlord doesn’t like Jewish people, he or she could refuse to rent to them.

Virtually any kind of discrimination could be protected under a veil of religious freedom, making each individual person — and their company — a law book unto themselves.

This shit is ridiculous, am I right?

Religious conservatives, you do you. You be religious! You proselytize against birth control all you want. But stop trying to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to treat those of us who aren’t on your team like crap.

We’re seriously over it.

—

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

Featured image Courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post Hobby Lobby Wants to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Twenty-something women of the world, are you married yet? Because according to Susan Patton, a.k.a. The Princeton Mom, you should be.

In her new book, Marry Smart: Advice for Finding THE ONE, Patton urges young, college attending women to spend their undergrad years husband hunting. According to her, finding a mate before graduation is imperative, because otherwise, your eggs will dry up in your ovaries and you’ll die alone with your seven cats. Or something like that.

Princeton Mom is all kinds of fascinating, and not just because she’s depressingly anti-feminist. Let’s run down the top five reasons why Susan Patton should be your new conservaturd celebrity obsession, mmkay?

1.) Lady is a tiger.

As a Princeton graduate, and a mother of two more, Patton is completely obsessed with orange and black. Her Upper East Side apartment is dripping with it — she’s got tiger tails hanging on the walls, orange and black craft projects strewn about, and she’s currently dreaming of a second wedding on the Princeton campus complete with orange roses.

If she wasn’t busy having New York Magazine features written about her and making appearances on the Today Show, I’d say Patton peaked during her college years. But maybe this tiger is just finding her stripes?

2.) Patton is recently divorced, which is totally a bummer.

She prefers not to talk about her former husband, although he “went to a college of almost no name recognition.” Ouch. Anyway, as it turns out, she frittered away her undergrad years at Princeton, you know, actually getting an education, and then wound up marrying whoever she happened to be dating at 31 in a race against the fertility clock.

I feel like it’s not a coincidence that that didn’t work out, no? Husband hunters, keep that in mind while you’re tracking down marriageable sperm donors. Marrying for the sake of your fertility timeline does not guarantee wedded bliss.

3.) The Princeton Mom is not COMPLETELY anti-feminist.

As a young woman, she eschewed immediate marriage and motherhood in favor of getting a top-notch education and developing her career. She even went so far as to legally emancipate herself from her “women don’t need to be educated” parents so she could attend Princeton.

Points, Princeton Mom. Feminist points.

4.) But don’t get too excited. She’s still pretty anti-feminist.

She doesn’t think date rape is a thing, and she thinks it’s a woman’s responsibility to keep herself out of situations where she might be violated. After all, we can’t expect men to act responsibly! Penises have a mind of their own, clearly. She totally freaked out Savannah Guthrie with this one.

Oh Mama Patton, I was rooting for you for a minute there.

5.) The Princeton Mom might be a tiger, but she’s also a cougar.

Embracing her newly found singledom, she’s dating multiple men at once, at least two of them Princeton grads. Free of the pressure of biology, she’s dating men who are fun and sexy — not potential sperm donors — and she’s having an awesome time doing it.

She just doesn’t really think YOU should be doing that, because, tick tock ladies. Those eggs of yours WILL NOT last forever.

So what do we make of the Princeton mom? Well, she’s a beacon of anti-feminist nonsense, the kind of self-help guru who sets women back a few generations.

She’s also kind of a badass. She’s unapologetic in her opinions, she’s going after it with all she’s got, and she’s feeling awesome about it.

So you do you, Princeton Mom! You be your fierce, tiger self.

The rest of you, don’t listen to her craze-tastic advice unless you’re inventing some kind of drinking game out of her TV appearances. In that case, please share.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Andrew_Writer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post 5 Reasons Why Princeton Mom Is Your New Anti-Feminist She-ro appeared first on Law Street.

Hello loves! How many of you went to CPAC last week?

Hopefully none of you. But! A whole bunch of young people did — obviously as props to debunk the claim that the GOP is full of rich, white men. (I’m just kidding.) (Kind of not really.)

Anyway! As a result of this Millennial pilgrimage to the land of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, the NRCC took the opportunity to ask its youngins’ why they identified as conservatives. The results are laughable.

First of all — the most concrete piece of new information we’ve learned from this little exercise is that Republicans can’t count. While the NRCC claims to have asked 37 Millennials why they were fans of the Grand Old Party, there are 45 individuals pictured on their countdown. Likewise, the Independent Journal Review, which reposted the piece, claims 26 individuals in the headline, 37 individuals in the slug, and pictures only 33.

Learn your 1, 2, 3s here, people. What kind of nonsense is this?

No, we’re not giving you one more chance.

So, clearly, we’ve established that this little study is anything but scientific.  Also, not well produced. If the Republican question-askers and statisticians can’t even keep their numbers straight, shouldn’t your standard, run of the mill copy editor notice something’s up? You’d think so. You’d also be wrong.

Anyway, mathematical challenges aside, let’s let these young Republicans speak for themselves, shall we? Here are a few reasons why they’re counting themselves conservative this year.

That’s pretty vague. Courtesy of NRCC.org

Even vaguer. Courtesy of NRCC.org

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Really?

Am I the only one who’s noticing that something’s up here? None of these reasons are actually reasons. They’re just meaningless buzzwords.

You’re conservative because…taxes? Do you mean that you like how the Republican party has rigged the system so that gazillionaires and corporations get tax breaks, while YOU, lowly 20-something, are paying taxes through your nose? If that’s what you meant by, “I’m conservative because taxes,” then I guess you’re in the right place. A self-defeating one, mind you.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

And what about fiscal responsibility? These folks are on the tax train too — as in, they’d like to pay fewer of them. They’re all kinds of pissed off about having their tax dollars funneled into the social safety net, because no one wants to subsidize those lazy, mooching, poor people! The blasphemy!

I’m guessing they all have health insurance, and aren’t particularly worried about falling ill and going bankrupt. Also, they probably aren’t aware that the group who benefits most from the social safety net is, in fact, their grandparents.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Then, of course, there are the Jobby McJobersons, who are conservatives because jobs. I’m guessing they want more of them? If so, maybe they should be a little more specific about the kinds of jobs they’re looking for.

Because among job creators in the GOP, new positions typically don’t pay a living wage or include benefits. Take Walmart, for example. Owned by the Waltons, an incredibly rich and incredibly conservative family, it’s the single largest employer in the country. Its employees also hold food drives for each other, because they don’t actually make enough money to buy food themselves.

Walmart holding canned food drive for its own underpaid employees http://t.co/SkUrh7tP53 pic.twitter.com/h9ZmJHfekZ

— Scott Keyes (@smkeyes) November 18, 2013

I feel like those aren’t the kinds of jobs that’ll pay off your student loans, young CPAC attendees.

There were a few young people who were more thoughtful in their responses. Take this girl, for example, who’s being really clear about how much she’d like to preserve her privilege as a white, cis-gender, straight, Christian woman, at the expense of queers, people of color, and poor folks.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Then there’s this guy, who’s affiliated with the GOP because he’s disappointed in Obama’s performance as President. You know what, love? I totally agree with you. Obama hasn’t been able to create the hope and change he promised. A huge factor in that, though, is the unwillingness of Republicans to cooperate with him on literally anything.

Courtesy of NRCC.org

Now, I’m all for listening to young Republicans as the reflect on and explain why they identify as conservatives. But that’s not what’s happening here. These 20-somethings aren’t reflecting on much, and they aren’t explaining anything at all. They’re mindlessly spewing one-word, canned talking points.

And that’s not helping anybody. You need to improve your communication skills here, CPAC’ers! You should take a lesson from these awesome people, who are fabulous at explaining their political alignment. Notice how they all use full sentences and complete thoughts.

PS – Handsome person in the top right corner, give me a call sometime, mmkay? Courtesy of Tumblr.com

So, young Republicans, do me a favor. Get your fucking acts together. Think more critically about why you identify as conservative, and give us more than the same tired, one-word answers a million people used before you. You don’t need to understand a damn thing about life or politics to write “Jobs” on a piece of paper.

And we need you to understand things. Because you’re pretty close to taking over this show yourselves.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post Young Conservatives Actually Have No Clue Why They’re Conservative appeared first on Law Street.

So, apparently Dexter might be a real thing.

This week, 19-year-old Miranda Barbour confessed to killing at least 22 people in Alaska, California, Texas, and North Carolina, all as a result of her involvement in an Alaskan satanic cult.

She was arrested in Sunbury, Pa., for the November homicide of a man she met through Craigslist. Allegedly, Miranda lured 42-year-old Troy LaFerrera into her Honda CR-V through a “companionship” ad on Craigslist. She agreed to have sex with him for $100, but wound up stabbing him 20 times instead.

Barbour’s described herself as akin to Dexter — a fictional, vigilante serial killer who murdered other criminals — because she only killed “bad” people, who “didn’t deserve to be here anymore.”

Folks, this story is crazy pants. If you thought the Amanda Knox or Jodie Arias cases were big, just wait for this one to gain some more traction. True insanity is about to descend upon the news-reading American population. And that’s because we’re fascinated with all that’s fucked up. We love a good serial killer. It’s literally the first thing you learn in journalism school — if it bleeds, it leads.

And this Miranda Barbour story is fucking hemorrhaging.

Here’s the inside scoop on her background. If you can, try to refrain from imagining the accompanying Lifetime movie that’s most definitely in pre-production as we speak. According to her own accounts, Miranda Barbour grew up in Alaska — the coldest, darkest, most mysterious state in this gigantic nation. AKA, the perfect setting for a truly fucked up story.

At age four, Miranda was molested by a family member. (Presumably, we’re supposed to consider this the root cause of all her later transgressions.) By age 13, she’d gotten her first taste of murder. Accompanying the leader of the satanic cult she would subsequently join, Miranda went to a dark alley to meet a man who owed the cult leader money.

Then, according to Miranda, “[H]e said to me that it was my turn to shoot him. I hate guns. I don’t use guns. I couldn’t do it, so he came behind me and he took his hands and put them on top of mine and we pulled the trigger. And then from there I just continued to kill.”

During her years in the cult, Miranda climbed to the top of the ranks, and even married another cult official, who was later murdered. At one point, she became pregnant, and the group drugged her, tied her to a bed, and performed an “in-house” abortion.

When she got pregnant for the second time, she decided to leave the cult — and Alaska — behind, moving to North Carolina.

“I wanted to start over and forget everything I did,” said Miranda.

Apparently, though, that didn’t really work out for her, seeing as she claims her killing streak continued after she left Alaska, dropping bodies across several states.

Her daughter is now a year and a half old, and is currently being held in protective custody. Miranda is allowed to visit.

Now, the details about the Satanic cult are interesting, for sure. This story reads like the juiciest of true crime novels. But, what’s really interesting about this story, is how completely batshit crazy it has the potential to get.

Here’s why: there is absolutely no corroborating evidence of Miranda’s involvement in a Satanic cult, or in any previous killings.

“Thorough investigation will likely demonstrate that this cult story is fiction,” said Peter Gilmore, the New York-based head of the Church of Satan, who confirmed that his church does not condone murder. Likewise, Monica Caison, the founder of a missing persons center in North Carolina, is skeptical about Miranda’s serial killer claims.

“That’s a lot of people to kill in such a short time, and being so young and never making a mistake, I’m hard pressed to believe that amount,” said Caison, referring to Miranda’s claim that she’d killed somewhere between 22 and 100 people over the last six years.

Not to mention, she doesn’t fit the profile. Women serial killers are typically older and don’t use knives, and serial killers in general are exponentially better at stashing bodies. Miranda’s latest Craigslist victim? Dumped in a backyard, with intact cell phone and identification, right in the same town that the murder took place.

That doesn’t look like the work of a pro.

But, despite the doubtful nature of her claims, Miranda’s story didn’t sound rehearsed. According to Francis Scarcella, the reporter who broke this story, she never hesitated once as she recounted her dark life into his audio recorder. Scarcella described her as meek, mild, and generally unintimidating.

But of course, “Looks can be deceiving,” as Barbour quickly pointed out, destroying the sexist assumptions that paint women — even serial killer women — as harmless victims or benign liars.

But what shocked Scarcella the most? When asked if she felt any remorse for her killings, Miranda replied with, “None.” And further, she unequivocally stated that if she was ever released from prison, she would kill again.

And therein lies the crazy. While Miranda’s story is perhaps implausible, her delivery is incredibly convincing. Whether or not her claims are true, she seems to believe them wholeheartedly, and she’s got the rest of us scratching our heads, trying to make sense of the nonsensical web she’s spun with her words.

That’s the hallmark of a true, psychopathic manipulator, and she’s got every one of us on the hook.

What do you think of the developing Miranda Barbour story?

—

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 Bay Harbor Butcher via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post BREAKING: Real Life Lady Dexter Confesses to Between 22 & 100 Murders appeared first on Law Street.

So, how many of you caught the Grammy Awards this weekend?

If you missed it, you should totally check out the recap post I wrote yesterday. It was a pretty epic night, complete with a weird Taylor Swift head banging incident and Daft Punk robot love.

But! The highlight of this year’s Grammys was definitely, without a doubt, Beyoncé and Jay Z’s “Drunk in Love” duet. It was so sexy. How sexy?

Dying over here.

Ridiculous amounts of sexy.

This performance isn’t notable just because all of us felt a universal need to go take a cold shower after watching it. As Alyssa Rosenberg points out on Think Progress, it’s also got a political edge to it.

Folks, Mr. and Mrs. Carter are proving that marriage can be awesome.

Now, I’ve written before about how the institution of marriage can be super problematic. It’s historically rooted in the buying and selling of women — complete with name changes to indicate the changing hands of property owners — and while it’s a different animal now here in the U.S., it’s still a source of major oppression. Spousal abuse and domestic violence still run rampant, women are still disproportionately responsible for the second or third shift of child rearing and housekeeping, and of course, there’s that nasty beast called monogamy. It’s got a shit reputation for making people feel trapped and unfulfilled — assuming they’re even sticking to it.

So, yeah. Marriage can be a bum deal. Which is why divorce rates are depressingly high, marriage rates are tellingly low, and movies like Runaway Bride are so goddamn relatable.

And that’s a problem for the political Right. They’d like to sell marriage all day — the heterosexual, monogamous kind, at least. For the conservatives, marriage is the ideal. The goal we’re all working toward. The bitter end.

But wait — isn’t that the Left’s view as well? Honestly, pretty much. One night stands and extended bachelorhood might be glorified on TV (Barney Stinson, anyone?), but really, even How I Met Your Mother’s ultimate single guy tied the knot eventually. Politically, the Left is all about marriage as well.

I mean, really, who are we kidding? The movement for gay rights has been a movement for gay marriage rights. Even the queers, who are supposed to be little unicorns of unconventional-relationship-forming light, are obsessed with marriage these days. It’s just reality.

So, when Jay Z and Beyoncé — two ridiculously hot, successful people who just happen to be married to one another — take the stage at the Grammys and give the single sexiest performance ever in the history of the world, we all have to sit up and pay attention.

Because it’s like a collective light bulb just went off. Aha! This is what marriage can look like.

Over at Think Progress, Alyssa argued that the Carters’ performance could be a major asset for the Right, if mobilized correctly. Conservatives could sell marriage licenses faster than hotcakes if they hired Bey and Jay to be their spokesmodels.

But I’d like to take it one step further. Sure, the Carters could sell a traditional marriage ideal for the Right — except, they don’t fit into it themselves. The conservative marriage model is dreary and Puritanical. It takes a Calvinist attitude to relationships — it’s hard work, and not much play. It’s a commitment between partners and helpmates, not so much a joyful companionship.

And I’m sorry, but who really wants in on that? Not Beyoncé and Jay Z. Definitely not.

So, instead of serving as a sales pitch for the political Right, I think the Carters are offering a radical redefinition of marriage.

Here are two people who have actual fun together. Who respect each other. Who actively resist racist and sexist norms built into the marriage model. (Did you know that they both changed their names upon legalizing? Jay Z’s an awesome feminist husband and I love him.) These are two separate and independent people, and they’ve come together not because they need each other, but because they want one another.

This is a marriage that doesn’t look like work. It looks like fun.

So, with that, here’s the full video of Beyoncé and Jay Z totally owning the Grammys.

Now that’s a marriage I wouldn’t mind being in.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [idrewuk via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post Beyoncé and Jay Z Did Some Feminist Marriage Queering at the Grammys appeared first on Law Street.

Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is facing criticism for comments he made during a speech on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting. Ironically, the former Arkansas Governor was discussing how Republicans need to increase their efforts to attract women voters when he stated, “If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it.”

There was instant outrage as soon as Huckabee finished delivering his speech. The Democratic National Committee was quick to jump at the chance to attack the Republican Party for Huckabee’s words. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that Huckabee’s comment “sounds offensive.” And a storm of tweets related to the subject were issued after the speech, including this one from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

Even 100 years ago, it would have been hard to imagine a man making a statement as ridiculous as what Mr. Huckabee said today.

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) January 23, 2014

What is not important about his statement is the fact that his comments have been easily misconstrued to mean that women can’t control their sexual urges. Though it may have seemed that Huckabee said women have uncontrollable libidos, the former Governor actually meant something else entirely. Reading into the context of the quotation, Huckabee was really discussing that, in his view, Democrats are using the ‘war on women’ to portray women as needing the government’s help to manage their reproductive systems.

However, the actual meaning of Huckabee’s comment is what is truly disconcerting for the three reasons:

1. Huckabee believes that women don’t need the government’s aid with respect to their reproductive health.

Due to a key provision in the Affordable Care Act, women are now able to get their prescribed FDA-approved contraceptives without co-payment. This measure is huge for lower income women who, prior to the passage of the legislation, couldn’t fit the payment for contraceptives into their already tight budgets. If the federal government did not mandate that contraceptives be free to women through their insurance,  many women would not be able to gain access to birth control.  Thus, it is very concerning that Huckabee’s statement suggests woman do not need the government to step in to protect their reproductive rights.

2. The comment echos the common misconception that birth control is only for preventing pregnancy.

Huckabee’s statement draws further evidence to the fact that many have the wrong idea about birth control. Contraceptives are not solely used to prevent unplanned pregnancies while engaging in sexual activity (though it is extremely important that woman have access to birth control to control what happens in their own bodies).  Birth control is prescribed to many women for a variety of reasons. In response to Huckabee’s speech, Planned Parenthood released a statement noting that birth control “helps women plan their pregnancies and manage their lives, and many women use it for a variety of other medical reasons, including treatment of endometriosis that can lead to infertility.”  In addition to treating endometriosis, there are many other uses for birth control, including regulating a woman’s menstrual cycle, relieving menstrual pain, and clearing acne. In addition, according to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of women surveyed who use a contraceptive use birth control for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Thus contraceptives are not merely used for preventing pregnancy but for a multitude of other important issues related to women’s health.

3. Huckabee’s statement exposes his own hypocrisy with regard to government law on contraceptive coverage.

By claiming that the government should stay out of contraceptive coverage for women, Mike Huckabee ignores his own past as Governor of Arkansas. Bill Scher of Campaign for America’s Future noted that in 2005, Huckabee signed into law a measure that required Arkansas insurance plans to include coverage of birth control and other kinds of contraception. And Huckabee was not the only Republican supporting mandated contraceptive coverage for insurance. Five other GOP governors were responsible for signing similar bills into law, and George W. Bush never challenged federal mandates on contraception during his presidency. However, as soon as birth control became a partisan issue, Republicans were quick to move away from supporting state-mandated contraceptive coverage. If Huckabee believes that government should not sponsor birth control coverage, he should not stop at blaming only Democrats, but should also include his own past actions and those of other Republicans.

What is certain about Huckabee’s statement is that it won’t help the Republican party gain an influx of female voters. From this comment to Todd Akin’s infamous ‘legitimate rape’ gaffe, there are so many instances that prove Republicans are failing to properly address and understand women’s issues.  And while Huckabee’s comment has been misinterpreted as being more offensive than what he actual meant, perhaps the former Governor should have taken time to ensure his words would be clear before making a public speech that would be covered extensively by the media. Moreover, in bringing up the issue of women’s reproductive rights in an attempt to gain political clout for his party, Huckabee demonstrates that politicians are still politicizing an issue that needn’t be controversial at all: the right for women to control their own choices.

[Washington Post] [Twitter] [CBS News] [Guttmacher] [Campaign for America’s Future] [LA Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Nozell via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

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

The post What Is and Isn’t Important About Huckabee’s ‘Libido’ Comment appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! Who’s enjoying this polar vortex 2.0? Not me!

To all of you in the Law Street D.C. office, is this really what you all do on a snow day? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks matthewstasoff.com!

Anyway! A bit south of D.C., exciting things are happening for the gays. At least, the gays who want to get married. Newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring is announcing that he finds the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. As a result, Virginia will ask a federal court to strike it down, alongside two same-sex couples.

Am I the only one who finds it a tad bit amusing that Virginia is going to court against itself? Anyway.

This is very exciting news! If the ban on same-sex marriage in Virginia is lifted, gay couples all across the state will gain access to the gazillion benefits afforded to legally married couples. Not to mention, they can stop navigating the legal minefield that results from having your marriage recognized by the federal government, but not by the state government. That shit’s a mess.

In order to win his case, Herring will base his argument on the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which struck down parallel laws banning interracial marriage. According to Herring, Loving didn’t just open doors for interracial couples, but for couples of all types. In his view, Loving found that couples have a fundamental right to marriage itself, and that right cannot be withheld based on a couple’s race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Pretty exciting stuff.

But I’m not just excited because, obviously, yay for civil rights and an end to marriage discrimination. (Also, let’s not forget that marriage is a pretty problematic institution all to itself. Grain of salt here, people.)

I’m also super pumped because this law affects two of my dear friends—Emilia Jones and Hannah Martin.

Aren’t they the cutest? They’re the cutest. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

I met Emi and Hannah back in 2010. We all went to NYU together, and we were all big lezzies. Naturally, we ran in the same circles.

Not really. I actually met Emi once at an LGBT club meeting in September 2009, and thought she seemed cool but was too shy to talk to her. (Socially awkward lesbian moment, over here.) The following semester, we wound up having two classes together and seeing each other literally every single day of the week, so we became fast friends.

Guys, Emi was awesome. She was my college bestie that year, and I was totally bummed when she graduated.

But! Emi’s life got all kinds of fabulous when she graduated from NYU. The state of New York legalized gay marriage in June 2011 — just in time for Gay Pride — and in July, she married her longtime lady love, Hannah.

They are so cute I can’t even handle it. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Anyway, they got married, I babysat their awesome cat in Brooklyn during their honeymoon, and then a few months later, they randomly moved to a farm in Virginia.

When I say randomly, I mean RANDOMLY. It literally felt like they were here one day, and gone the next. I secretly wondered if they were running from the CIA or something. Probably not. Anyway, they run Heart Moss Farm now, and they’re super happy, and they’re super cute.

With their adorable dog, Zach. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But! Being married in Virginia is complicated business, as Emi told me this morning.

“We recently re-filed our 2011 taxes — after my lawyer aunt who works for the IRS suggested it — when we were forced to file as married for NYC and NY state taxes but single federally. When we got our refund, it was A LOT of money,” Emi said. “If Va. doesn’t at least recognize gay marriage, we’ll have to file separate for Va. but joint federally, which essentially means you pay tons and tons of extra taxes. It is nasty business, especially when we are not making a lot as it is.”

So, basically, if Herring succeeds in his quest to get Virginia to recognize gay marriages, Emi and Hannah will be in a much better financial situation. And that’s awesome.

Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But there are other benefits to be had as well. Most of these run along the lines of basic respect for an individual’s safety and well being–like being allowed to visit each other and make decisions if one of them lands in the hospital. That shit’s a whole lot easier when there aren’t a bunch of contradictory, inconsistent laws arguing over whether you’re legally married or not.

So basically, we’re all rooting for Attorney General Herring over here, and also for Hannah and Emi. We’ll check back in with them once the ruling goes through.

In the mean time, all you Virginians should check out Heart Moss Farm’s pasture-raised chickens at your local farmer’s market. Yay for supporting queer businesses!

What do you think about Herring’s actions and Virginia’s gay marriage ban? Tell us 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 [Hannah R. Winsten]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post Look at This Adorable Couple Who Will Be Super Pumped if Virginia’s Gay Marriage Ban is Lifted appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon folks! How many of you got a snow day today? Lucky bitches.

Anyway! Guess what we’re commemorating this month? Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, yes—but something else. Something a bit less, serious.

The premier of The L Word! Who here remembers that show? Please tell me some of you.

Well, for those of you who live under a rock, The L Word was a Showtime series that followed the lives and loves of a group of lesbian friends living in Los Angeles. It was the first TV show to feature more than one significant lesbian character, and to this day it’s the only show that ever depicted semi-realistic, super-hot lesbian sex.

Who were you 10 years ago? I was an angsty, almost-teenager who dated dumb boys while secretly crushing on older girls. I was goth, or punk, or something, and I was eschewing my dreams of being a writer to halfheartedly pursue my dreams of being a rock star.

It was a weird time.

But 10 years ago, I didn’t have Showtime. I had never heard of The L Word. Netflix was barely a thing. And had my parents walked in on me watching the queer, soft-core porn that is The L Word’s claim to fame, they probably would have sent me away to an all-girls Catholic boarding school. (Kind of a weird disciplinary solution for a Jewish, budding dyke — but that was their go-to threat, nonetheless.)

I didn’t meet the cast of The L Word for another few years, when my first serious girlfriend and I binge-watched most of the series while she was recovering from surgery. Despite the show’s obvious problems — it was depressingly white-washed, hopelessly femme, and wildly unrealistic — I was totally hooked. It was the first time I’d ever seen anything remotely similar to my life up on the screen. And it was hot.

So here we are, a decade later, and everything’s different. I’m a grown-ass woman, with a job and an apartment and a life that’s complicated as fuck. The L Word’s long gone, and it’s been semi-replaced with Orange is the New Black — which is way queerer and more diverse, if slightly less X-rated. Queer characters are gracing the small screen left and right, from Modern Family to The Fosters. Things are good.

But are they really? Because life imitates art. And things are still pretty rough out here.

Poverty and homelessness are still a major problem for queer folks. We’re still met with devastating violence on the streets, and rejection from our families. We’re still faced with higher rates of unemployment, depression, and addiction. We’re still getting deported. We still don’t have health insurance.

Seriously. It’s rough out here.

And we’re not the only ones who feel it. Inequality is at an all-time high, leaving more people out in the cold than ever before. Things are difficult for most of us, regardless of sexuality. But for many, queerness makes it worse.

So, when I look back at The L Word and the world it premiered into 10 years ago, I like to think about how far we’ve come. It’s awesome that dykes on screen aren’t groundbreaking anymore. It’s fabulous that somewhere, someone, somehow, got the funding to represent us — even if it was a limited and problematic representation.

But it’s important to remember how far we have left to go. Just six months before The L Word hit Showtime, the Supreme Court issued a decision on the case Lawrence v. Texas, decriminalizing homosexuality in the United States.

That’s right.

Just six months before the gayest of gay girl shows premiered, queerness was criminal.

And today, a decade later, queers are still grossly underrepresented in the media, while we’re grossly over-represented in the prison population.

How much has really changed? It’s debatable, for sure.

So this month, head on over to Netflix and binge watch The L Word. Get hooked on the melodramatic awfulness and the inhumanly hot sex scenes.

But also remember that queerness is more than a glammed out TV show. And we still have a long-ass way to go.

—

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 [kyle rw via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post The First Time Lesbians Were Legal (on TV) 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.

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.

Happy New Year, folks! Welcome to 2014.

This is going to be one hell of a year — and it’s already kicked off with a bang. Not a fun, happy, feminist bang, but a bang nonetheless.

During her final moments of 2013, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirements in the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Basically, she just made it that much harder for women across the country to access birth control.

Not your finest moment, Justice Sotomayor. Courtesy of the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Steve Petteway source via Wikipedia.

Here’s how it went down. As of December 30, 2013, the Affordable Care Act requires employer-sponsored health insurance to cover birth control. So, basically, if you get health insurance on your day job’s dime, you legally cannot be prevented from using it to snag some birth control pills. Awesome.

But! As always, some folks were pretty pissed off about this. Namely, Christian folks. A whole slew of Christian-values nonprofits and businesses objected to this piece of the ACA, claiming it infringed on their religious freedom. The logic here, is that if Christian values include not supporting contraception or abortion, a Christian employer shouldn’t have to subsidize those services for its employees.

Fair enough, churchgoers. The government can’t force you to support — financially or otherwise — actions that are forbidden by your religion. That’s what religious freedom is all about, right? Getting to practice your faith freely, without anyone telling you it’s not allowed?

Yes! Absolutely. But, there’s another side to the freedom of religion coin. While the government can’t prevent anyone from freely practicing their faith, it also can’t push any particular faith on its citizens. So, while the government can’t stop Catholics from attending church on Sundays, it also can’t force Jews to celebrate Christmas. The street runs both ways.

And this is where things get tricky. While Christian organizations have a fair point — being legally forced to subsidize contraception if they’re religiously opposed to it is majorly problematic — they’re also forgetting the other side of the coin. They’re right in asserting that they can’t be forced to do anything that interferes with their religious beliefs, but they can’t, in turn, force their religious beliefs on anyone else.

And that’s the tragic flaw in their anti-Obamacare logic. If Christian businesses were given their way — and allowed to forego contraceptive coverage for their employees — they would be forcing workers to live by a set of Christian standards, unless they paid a steep price tag. What happens when the employees of a Christian company aren’t Christian themselves? What happens when they’re Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist? Can those employees be forced to live by Christian values?

Absolutely not. Now you’re infringing on their religious freedom.

And here lies the central problem. Forcing Christian businesses to pay for contraceptive coverage might be infringing on their religious freedom — but allowing them to not pay for it might infringe on workers’ religious freedom.

It’s a lose-lose situation.

But! As per a compromise cooked up by the Department of Health and Human Services, there seemed to be a solution. Under this plan, Christian companies and nonprofits had to sign a form stating their religious affiliation, and instead of paying for contraceptive coverage themselves, the insurers paid for it, and were reimbursed.

Yay solutions!

Awesome! Way to use your problem solving skills, people. This way, religiously opposed employers don’t have to pay for contraception, but employees can still access those services if they choose.

But, this wasn’t good enough for many a Christian employer. Signing a form was, apparently, too much to ask. So lawsuits poured in. And Justice Sotomayor was sympathetic.

So, with the hourglass running down on 2013, she signed a mandate preventing this piece of the law being enforced. What does that mean? Religious employers can deny workers contraceptive coverage. For folks working at Christian institutions, birth control will only be an option if they can afford to pay a whole ton of money out of pocket. Which really means, birth control won’t be an option at all.

The Obama administration has until tomorrow to respond. From there, we’ll all just have to wait around for the Supreme Court to make a final decision sometime this summer, after it’s had a chance to sift through all of the case filings. And, mind you, things aren’t looking too good on that front, considering this problem was brought about by one of the most feministy of Justices. If Sotomayor is making it hard for women to access birth control, who the fuck is going to make it any easier?

We’re looking at you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The tricky business of religious freedom has been a constant roadblock for women and feminism. What do you think about this latest Obamacare battle?

—

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 [Parenting Patch 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 Happy New Year! Your Birth Control’s No Longer Covered appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year’s Eve, lovelies!

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

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

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

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

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

HBO / Via loveforlabels.eu

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

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

Thanks HBO!

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

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

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

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

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

HBO / Via tumblr.com

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

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

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

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

HBO / Via tumblr.com

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [John Gilbert Leavitt via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

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

The post New Year’s Resolution: Fuck Shit Up with Miranda Hobbes appeared first on Law Street.

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 afternoon, lovelies! How many of you are having a snow day today? Lucky bastards.

Well, while you’re lounging around on your couch, sipping hot cocoa in your pajamas, let me just ask you one thing: did you remember to recharge your bra this morning? Seriously bitches. This is a real thing.

Microsoft came out with a snazzy little tech gadget for ladies — a bra that prevents women from getting fat.

Apparently, the battery-powered boob-sling is equipped with removable sensors that monitor heart and skin activity. Based on those readings, the bra is supposed to be able to know what emotional state a woman is in. Why? To predict when she’s likely to start stress-eating.

When it predicts an impending ice cream binge, the bra sends an alert to your smart phone, which then shames the shit out of you and tells you NOT TO GO TO THE FRIDGE. Leave the kitchen now, and nobody gets hurt.

Folks, I can’t. Could this be any more blatantly sexist?

First of all, let’s stop with the paternalism, mmkay? I don’t need an electronic bra and a smart phone app to tell me when I’m feeling stressed and I want a cookie.

I am fully aware that I’m stressed and I want the cookie. (Or all of the cookies, but whatever.) Contrary to popular belief, women do actually have these things called brains. So, no, we don’t need third-party technology to explain our thoughts and emotions to us. We’re fully capable of recognizing them on our own.

Second of all, why is it so important for women to police their eating habits? I don’t see any electronic boxer briefs for the boys, telling them to quit it with the brownies already.

I’ll tell you why. Because the imperative for women to be always thin, all the time, is a product of sexist bullshit. As Naomi Wolf put it so clearly back in 1991 with her bestseller, The Beauty Myth, our society isn’t obsessed with tiny waistlines because it’s a sign of female beauty — rather, it’s a sign of female obedience.

Do as you’re told, ladies.

Because, what do we to women who are successful, who have some kind of power in the world? We fixate on their bodies to knock them down a few pegs. You made a hit album, but are you thin? You were elected Senator, but are you thin? You cured cancer, but are you thin? It’s a constant refrain that gets echoed every time a woman does anything worth noting. Because if she’s not thin, she clearly isn’t worthy of any praise, public attention, or social clout.

And it doesn’t stop there. It’s in our homes, in our everyday lives. The obsession with female thinness isn’t constrained by the public eye. Water cooler chat revolves around what diet all of us are on this week. A visit with the in-laws turns into a calorie-saving recipe swap.

This is my personal favorite way to keep off the pounds. SLAP THE CALORIES OFF THE PASTA. Fucking genius.

The fixation on eliminating excess body fat is all-consuming. We’re never allowed to step away from it. Women are even encouraged to lose weight while they sleep. Can’t we just, you know, SLEEP while we sleep? This is crazy.

Now, all you feminist skeptics — it’s true that men face scrutiny about their bodies. It’s true that people of all genders are pressured to aspire to impossible physical ideals.

Literally impossible. If JLaw isn’t even up to snuff, what hope is there for the rest of us Earthlings?

But. A fat man is not a worthless man. A guy with a beer gut can still get promoted, get laid, and largely be left in peace. But a woman with a belly? Apparently, she’s not even worthy of life. Actual life. As in, not being dead.

Think I’m exaggerating? Ask Caitlin Seida. A photo of her merely existing in her not-a-size-two body went viral, inspiring internet trolls to post comments like the following: “What a waste of space;” “Heifers like her should be put down;” and advising her to commit suicide in order to “spare everyone’s eyes.”

The lovely Caitlin Seida, having an awesome time on Halloween. I think she makes an epic Lara Croft, don’t you?

This is a real thing. In our culture, fat men are regularly given a free pass. But fat women? They’re told that they should die. If that’s not a patriarchal lesson in lady obedience training, I don’t know what is.

This is why Microsoft designed a bra that would keep women from overeating, but failed to invent male-targeted boxer briefs to do the same thing. Because in 2013, a woman’s worth is still very much tied up in how skinny — and submissive — she is.

Well, guess what Microsoft? We’re over it. We’re not all a size two. Sometimes we’re going to reach for the brownies. And that’s OK. We don’t need your engineers to invent apps to mansplain away our will to eat.

And besides, you’re so unoriginal. Is an electronic boob carrier the only thing you can come up with to target tech to women? Because if it is, I think you need to hire some better creative talent. (Don’t try to poach from Twitter, though — the tweeting bra they’re developing proves they’re not doing any better.)

So what do you think, folks? Would you wear a bra that told you to stop eating? Let’s start an open thread about our boobs. (Rush Limbaugh says thank you.)

—

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. Tweet her @HannahRWinsten.

Featured image courtesy of [Gerard Stolk 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 This Fat-Shaming Bra Is Really Sexist and Terrible appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon, folks! Are you ready for the weekend? I am. I’ll be organizing a march on Rush Limbaugh’s recording studio. Everyone who participates has to wear eyes over their boobs!

Anyway! Rush isn’t the only conservative doofus who has no idea how to relate to women. Apparently, a senior House Republican strategist is training the GOP on how to talk to women voters. It isn’t going well.

The unnamed strategist doesn’t seem to be hopping on the, “Tell your breasts to stop staring at my eyes!” bandwagon. Yay! But he is advising conservative, non-uterus laden politicians to be more sensitive. Yup. Apparently the gender gap in pro-GOP votes is because women have too many feelings. Cue the tiny violins.

This senior strategist, who’s remaining anonymous — probably because his strategy is terrible — is urging his trainees to refer to themselves as husbands and fathers. He’s advising them to make blanket, disapproving statements about rape. And he’s telling them to connect with women on an emotional level.

So, basically, he’s telling Republican politicians that women are a big glob of emotional basket cases, making hysterical, irrational decisions not to vote for them. Appeal to those sobbing nut jobs! Win back those votes!

Are you kidding me?

You’re all idiots.

This guy is probably the worst strategist on the planet. Which isn’t really a bad thing, because less votes for the Republicans! Yay! But seriously, what is going on here?

First of all, if you’re trying to appeal to a group of people by first assuming that they’re crazy, you’re not going anywhere fast. People—not just women—respond well to positive reinforcement and respect. They don’t really appreciate being treated like loony tunes. It’s condescending, insulting, and all around not fun.

So, if you want women to like you, maybe start by assuming that they’re smart? Capable of sound decisionmaking? Worthy of respect? These are the kinds of assumptions that lead to positive interactions between people—and in the Republican case—more votes.

Second, the conservative assumption that women are too sensitive to vote correctly isn’t just patronizing. It’s downright sexist. The image of the emotionally unstable woman is a gendered stereotype as old and tired as you feel after a night of super fun debauchery.

But actually. Ever heard of hysteria? It used to be a common medical diagnosis. Women would be deemed “hysterical” if they were plagued by excessive emotions. And, conveniently, since the cause of illness was a disturbance of the womb, only women could be hysterical.

So, basically, a man consumed with violent rage is just angry. But a woman in the same state is physically and mentally ill. Great! Just drop me off at the nearest insane asylum, would you dear?

Anyway! This whole “women are hysterical” crap is seriously old. Like, YAWN you’re so unoriginal I’m actually being bored back to sleep, kind of old. It’s 2013, people. Can’t you at least get a little creative with your gross and depressing sexism?

Apparently not. Appealing to women’s emotions is the foundation of the new Republican strategy to snag lady voters. And guess what? Not only does it prove that the Right still hasn’t managed to stop being sexist—it also shows that they can’t manage to come up with any new and creative solutions to old problems. Probably not the most qualified people to be running a country, am I right?

NOPE.

Finally, and perhaps most amusingly, the anonymous Republican strategist is advising his trainees to identify themselves first and foremost as husbands and fathers, and to broadly denounce rape. (You know it’s bad when you have to explain that rape is not something to be taken lightly.)

This shit cracks me up. For ages, women have been identified and valued primarily because of their relationships to other people. A woman is always someone’s wife, mother, sister, or daughter first. Is she also a business executive? A writer? A surgeon? Much less important. That comes second.

And that’s irritating as fuck! Women should be valued on their own terms, as individuals with societal contributions to make—not just as caretakers and companions. But no one’s telling the Republicans that. No conservatives are looking to subvert the sexism that assumes women are most useful when they’re behind the scenes. Nope. Instead, they’ve just decided to half-assedly stoop to a woman’s level on the campaign trail. Identify as a father first, a Congressman second. Meanwhile, we all know who’s more likely to be at home, potty training that father’s children. (Hint: Not him.)

So, ladies, the next time you want your elected official to vote against abortion restrictions, food stamp cuts, or affordable healthcare, start crying. Throw a tantrum. Get hysterical. Accuse your legislator of being insensitive.

Because apparently they’re being trained to respond to that.

–

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.

Featured image courtesy of [Hermann Kaser 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 You Should Vote Republican Because You’re a Basket Case 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]