Recently in Harassment Category

Seeing women's and feminist issues relegated to the "Styles" section of The New York Times is nothing new. And while I was glad to see students' rights and gender taken up in the NYT, presenting the continued harassment of trans students (by peers and educators) as a mere dress code problem is incredibly problematic.

Last week, a cross-dressing Houston senior was sent home because his wig violated the school's dress code rule that a boy's hair may not be "longer than the bottom of a regular shirt collar." In October, officials at a high school in Cobb County, Ga., sent home a boy who favored wigs, makeup and skinny jeans. In August, a Mississippi student's senior portrait was barred from her yearbook because she had posed in a tuxedo.

Other schools are more accepting of unconventional gender expression. In September, a freshman girl at Rincon High School in Tucson who identifies as male was nominated for homecoming prince. Last May, a gay male student at a Los Angeles high school was crowned prom queen.

Dress code conflicts often reflect a generational divide, with students coming of age in a culture that is more accepting of ambiguity and difference than that of the adults who make the rules.

So conservatives think they're calling out feminists on the lack of response to David Letterman's recent reveal that he has slept with several members of his staff. Where are the protests, the outrage? To that, I have a similar reaction to Tracy at Broadsheet: We simply don't know enough to do anything.

As far as we know, Letterman's affairs with staffers were consensual. Workplace canoodling happens all the time, and so are young women frequently drawn to male superiors. Many find power imbalances to be very sexy -- and more power (or less, as it were) to 'em. There is nothing inherently wrong about a sexual relationship between two adults who are at different points in their careers. It would be awfully patronizing to suggest that women aren't capable of meaningfully consenting to sex with a workplace superior. That isn't to say I don't pass personal judgment on Letterman for sleeping with young women who were from the sounds of it at the starts of their careers -- oh, judgment abounds, believe me! But is it illegal, is it sexual harassment?

She acknowledges a few potential situations around this story, and if we find this is the case - yes, Letterman will have a sexual harassment suit to deal with. And yes, the power dynamics of sexual relationships at work between superiors and their staff can be fucked up. But it would also be fucked up for us to label these women as powerless victims who didn't know what they were doing when as far as we know, it was consensual sex. Do I personally think it's gross? Did Letterman do a really stupid thing? Totally. But that doesn't mean what Letterman did was illegal. People have sex. And he's not a politician preaching sexual morality; he's a late night TV show host. When we see something to get up in arms about - even offenses committed by liberals - we do it. But for now, is this really worthy covering?

What is worthy to post about is the fact that conservatives can act all enraged that feminists aren't enraged all the while making comments about Letterman's wife being ugly and equating Letterman's doings with the rape of a 13-year old - all for the sake of trying to call us bad liberals out. And they're just replaying the classic conservative view of women - that we're too stupid or not mature enough to make our own decisions (hello, "informed consent" laws). Now that's some hypocrisy for you.

UDPATE: Reader fsu points out that Shakes has been covering the story.

Well this is horrible:

One in every 33 women who attend worship services regularly has been the target of sexual advances by a religious leader, a survey released Wednesday says.

The study, by Baylor University researchers, found that the problem is so pervasive that it almost certainly involves a wide range of denominations, religious traditions and leaders.

"It certainly is prevalent, and clearly the problem is more than simply a few charismatic leaders preying on vulnerable followers," said Diana Garland, dean of Baylor's School of Social Work, who co-authored the study.

The piece has a story of a young woman who was sexually assaulted by her pastor at her Evangelical Lutheran Church - when seeking spiritual guidance, he told her that having sex with him was ordained by God. Even after years of therapy, she still has a hard time walking into a Church.

Sadly only a couple of states have laws in place around this, including Texas, which defines clergy sexual behavior as sexual assault if the leader "causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser."

This just depresses me. I've never been religious so I'd really like to hear from some readers' of faith thoughts on this. Any experiences, thoughts?

ht/ to Hugo.

It's after Labor Day, so the worst of holler season is over. But when my friend Jeanne tipped me off to this documentary, I had to share. In War Zone, a woman with a video camera directly confronts men who harass her on the street. (It was made in 1998 -- think of it as kind of a precursor to Holla Back.)

What's fascinating to me is that many of these men don't even seem to have a reason for cat-calling. It's just something they do reflexively. And when she asks them to repeat their harassment directly to her face, it's clear that many of them are embarrassed.

So long, farewell?

Yes, my headline is wishful thinking. But this is definitely a step in the right direction. (Ignore the article's headline if you can, ugh.)

A Manhattan judge ruled yesterday that a blogger can't hide behind a web of anonymity while flinging the ugly words "skank" and "ho" at somebody online.

The sternly worded ruling orders Google to give up the identity of an anonymous blogger-assailant who inexplicably devoted an entire blog -- titled "Skanks in NYC" -- to maligning beautiful blond model Liskula Cohen.

Once Cohen knows the name of her harasser, she can serve them with a defamation suit.

Now, how I feel about anonymous trolls - anonymous misogynists, specifically, is no secret. But Tracy Clark-Flory at Broadsheet has a point: "I am a true child of the Internet and a libertarian at heart, so I'm not all that enthused by the prospect, repugnant as these characters may be." What could a case like this mean for anonymous bloggers who aren't harassing creepsters? It's a tough one - I value the anonymity the Internet gives to people who are using blogging and online activism for progressive ends.

When it comes to the harassment and threats that so many people face online, the answer is clear - there should be some accountability. (And no, before anyone says it: Maligning people, calling women "whores," and issuing online rape and death threats aren't "free speech.") Sometimes that accountability comes in the form of a blogger outing a harasser. Sometimes it means that said harassers will face consequences they never expected.

Most of the time, however, there isn't any accountability - and the victims of online harassment and threats are left with no recourse except to live with it. I certainly know how that feels - having been the target of harassment ranging from bloggers calling me a slut from the way I looked in an innocuous picture, to rape and death threats in emails, to a website Photoshopping pictures of me to look pornographic. And let me tell you: that shit changes you. It changes your sense of safety, sense of self and any idealism you may have had about people being generally good.

And as I wrote in this 2007 Guardian article, battling online harassment should be part of feminist activism - because often the harassment is based on the same power structures and privileges that allow for real life racism, sexism, homophobia, you name it:

Is this what people are really like? Sexist and violent? Misogynist and racist? Alice Marwick, a postgraduate student in New York studying culture and communication, says: "There's the disturbing possibility that people are creating online environments purely to express the type of racist, homophobic, or sexist speech that is no longer acceptable in public society, at work, or even at home."

That doesn't mean I know what the answer is. The truth is, I really don't. But I do know that this is something feminists need to keep on their radar, keep talking about, and keeping fighting against. Because online or off - we all deserve to live free from harassment and fear.

Photo by Jason Wagner, via Gothamist.

This is horrible:

Greenpoint resident Chrissie Brodigan says she was riding on the L train between Bedford and First Avenue when her pug, who has health problems, overheated and began vomiting in the tote bag she was carrying him in. As she was leaving the subway station with the dog in her arms, she says a police officer's attempt to issue her a ticket turned ugly, and when she became upset the cop began saying, "If you're going to act like a woman I'm going to treat you like a woman."

Brodigan says the cop went on to punch her in the back, and in the scuffle to handcuff her, he "grabbed my breasts and pinched them." A witness's account:

Melissa Randazzo, a speech language pathologist who lives in Williamsburg, witnessed the arrest and tells us, "something about it seemed very wrong. The cop's tone seemed really inappropriate and he kept saying things like, 'Are you going to act like a woman?' She tried to walk away, and then he grabbed her and pushed her against the wall outside the turnstile."

Luckily both Brodigan and her dog are okay.

A couple of thoughts here. Because the cop who Brodigan identified as her attacker is the NYPD's lone Hasidic officer, the Gothamist comments section has a bunch of racist comments and negative stereotypes about Hasidic Jews. Can we all please just agree that racism is not a useful response?

Also, Brodigan appears to be pretty plugged-in, and has thankfully been able to draw attention to this incident. I wonder how often this sort of abuse happens, but the woman in question does not have so many resources at her disposal. How many of these incidents do we never hear about?

*Trigger Warning*

A young woman in Detroit, Asia McGowan, was shot and killed by someone who had been leaving her nasty comments on her Youtube account and also had been stalking her on Facebook. This was someone she knew in real life-it was one of her classmates.

This story is really upsetting me, but I am trying to keep my head straight about the issues at hand. It is stressing me out for two reasons. One, almost every woman I know that has an internet identity has received some sort of threatening, stalker-ish, troll-ish email, comment, forum posting, death threat, blog post or shit even a vlog. This story is chilling and it is important to remember the stalking and murder of women happened before the invention of social networking technology, but this story is chilling nonetheless. As Miriam just said to me over IM, maybe these cases are just more visible now because of technology.

Two, why isn't this story on any of the national news networks? Because black women getting stalked and killed isn't worthy of national news coverage?

For more on this story check out What About Our Daughters, she has all the youtube videos up.

Thanks to Tiffany for the link and reminding me that this type of thing happened even before the internet.

In light of Bill O'Reilly's upcoming speaking gig with the Alexa Foundation, an organization that supports the rights of victims of sexual violence, Amanda Terkel at Think Progress exposed O'Reilly's victim-blaming past. In the past O'Relly asserted that the rape and murder of a woman was partially her own fault based on what she was wearing. Strange that Bill O would be speaking at Alexa.

This odd match becomes more apparent because due to the frustration by the O'Reilly camp, Terkel was stalked and harassed by the producers of Fox News. In her own words, Terkel writes,

This weekend, while on vacation, I was ambushed by O'Reilly's top hit man, producer Jesse Watters, who accosted me on the street and told me that because I highlighted O'Reilly's comments, I was causing "pain and suffering" to rape victims and their families. He of course offered no proof to back up this claim, instead choosing to shout questions at me.

I expect O'Reilly to air this "interview" at some point this week, possibly as early as tonight. I have no expectation that he will show the entire altercation or give the entire story about what happened, so here is the full account, offering a glimpse inside the O'Reilly harrassment machine:

You can read the play by play stalking on her post. Terkel concludes that the point remains that O'Reilly needs to apologize that it is in any way relevant what woman was wearing or drinking when she is raped and killed. Suffice it to say, O'Relly and his team owe Terkel an apology for stalking and harassing her.

Feministe, Raw Story and Daniel at the Feministing Community have more. You can also join the Facebook group in support of Terkel here.

Jesse Watter's the producer who followed Terkel can be emailed here.

Also, last night in full O'Reilly style, he called Terkel a 'villian' for standing up for rape victims.

UPDATE: Check out Amanda on Keith Olbermann's show tonight, discussing the incident.

The Center for Emerging Media's Marc Steiner Show aired a talk with our girl Jill from Feministe, the amazing Latoya from Racialicious and Danielle Citron from the University of Maryland (whose research is on online harassment) to discuss the ways that the blogosphere has been extremely hostile to female bloggers and what can be done to create a safer environment.

I'd bet every blogger who is a woman has experienced some form of online harassment. This is definitely a necessary discussion to be had. Click here to listen to the show, I'm waiting on the transcript.

The lovely Campbell Brown gives us the low-down on a Massachusetts woman and her husband who were pulled over for speeding, given a ticket, and then asked by the state trooper to prove her pregnancy by showing her belly.

Read transcript here.

Nothing gets me more heated than law enforcement officials and the like who feel the need to expose and humiliate women, probably because I've had a couple of encounters myself. One was when I was in the airport last year going through security check-in - the security person told me to take my scarf off, which I did. Then he told me to take my thin cardigan off (I only had a small tank underneath), which I refused - you know, considering the woman who was already in the clear in front of me wasn't asked to take her scarf or jacket off. So he "allowed" me to proceed. Fucking jerk.

I'm sure some of you have had your own experiences...

Last week I wrote about an article run by Salon about "upskirting" and "downblousing" using a quote from John Morris at the Center for Democracy and Technology that certainly set off some alarm bells.

From my post,

Unfortunately, the debate that ensues is a question of whether or not your privacy is being violated since you are on the street and as a public place is free to be photographed with all participants or as John Morris, from the Center for Democracy & Technology, says in the article, "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street."

I have a friend that works at CDT and felt this was a bad characterization of the goals and values of their organization and brought it to the attention of the Director and CEO Leslie Harris, who has released this statement.

The recent Salon article, "Porn in a Flash," contains a quote from our General Council John Morris that was taken out of context. John's quote: "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street," spoke to the broader, general question of whether someone has an expectation of privacy in a public place. Placement of the quote, however, made John sound unsympathetic toward "upskirting" and "downblousing." Of course these practices are wrong, and of course there is a difference between a snapshot on the street and this sort of invasive voyeurism.

CDT is a strong advocate of personal privacy and commends the steps states have taken to criminalize these nefarious practices. Federal privacy laws were passed before the majority of today's portable technologies existed outside of Dick Tracy comic books. That's why CDT is pressing Congress to rewrite the privacy laws and bring them up-to-date with today's technology and provide the sorely needed protections missing from the law as it stands today. We fully believe that state invasion of privacy laws can, if carefully drafted, adequately address these upskirting and downblousing practices.

Leslie Harris
President & CEO
Center for Democracy & Technology

Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon has an informative piece up about the increase of creepy upskirt photography. What is upskirt photography? When someone stands behind you or below you and snaps a pic on their camera phone up your skirt when you don't realize it. Then shares it with other upskirt fetishists on the internets. It is gross, offensive, violating, and a very popular form of pornography.

When it comes to voyeurs who photograph or videotape up a woman's skirt (known as "upskirting") or snap a photo down a woman's shirt ("downblousing"), though, "there are not many practical, legal remedies available to people who find themselves the victim," says Anita Allen, a privacy expert and professor at Penn Law. That's if the woman even realizes she is a victim in the first place, which is unlikely, as the voyeur typically manages to go undetected. If the photo or video is published online -- which, increasingly, it is -- it would be difficult for the subject to ever come across the material. Even if she did, how could she recognize one underwear-clad rear as her own?

Unfortunately, the debate that ensues is a question of whether or not your privacy is being violated since you are on the street and as a public place is free to be photographed with all participants or as John Morris, from the Center for Democracy & Technology, says in the article, "If you don't want to be photographed walking the street, don't walk down the street -- it's a public street."

But as Clark argues and I agree, there is a big difference taking a picture of someone on the street and strategically placing a camera between a woman's legs or down her shirt for kicks and jerk off material. Suggesting if a woman doesn't want to be upskirted, she shouldn't be on the street or shouldn't wear a skirt-well that just sounds like a "blame the victim" line of defense to actually be a legitimate excuse for a blatant violation of privacy.

Thoughts?

Newsweek recently posted a Q&A with Jean-Claude Van Damme conducted by Sarah Ball, a female reporter in her early 20s. I know that women are sexually harassed at work every day. But not all of those women have got a tape-recorder on them...

There's a monologue in the film about being a washed-up action star. Did you improvise that?
I like structure--like driving: go past the school on the street, stay on the right side, no hitting the car, go in right, you'll see a big church, stop and take a left, and you'll have it. By doing this I'm giving a structure of life, a path of light, and showing what happens between me and me, which is something very beautiful.

Beautiful? Why?
I really opened myself up in "JCVD." I peeled back the skin of the fruit, cut the pulp and then took that very hard seed. In this film I cut that hard seed, and inside that seed was a kind of liquid cream substance of the man I am, or the woman you are.

OK --
It was like being naked--I would love to be naked in front of you.

Well, I --
Not being naked being naked. I say such things in Hong Kong and they thought I was being a crazy Frenchman. Being naked of protection.

So you've no regrets at all?
Believe me--I've done very good stuff and very crazy stuff, and I don't regret the crazy stuff. So are you in New York?

Yes, I am.
And are you 27, or 32?

I'm 22.
Oh, f---. That is very young. Will you come to the premiere?

I don ' t know. When is it?
I don't know. You will wear all black, a black dress and high heels?

Uh --
You can come find me, I will be the one with the very broad shoulders, dark hair and a simple suit. We can have some champagne, you and me.

Props to Newsweek for actually publishing this. Almost every female journalist I know has a story about being harassed while trying to conduct a serious interview with a male source. Van Damme illustrates this phenomenon so perfectly. What a fucking creep.

Just two months after we found out that the New York City MTA had agreed to post anti-harassment ads in the subway, I was thrilled to see them up and just had to share. Big ups to MTA and, once again, to the organizations who helped make this happen.

It is no secret that women in the male entertainment industry are often subject to harsh conditions, violence, lack of pay and sometimes murdered. But I think the abuses faced by women that have recently immigrated are harsher, especially when they may not have networks developed yet, they may not understand the legal system or aren't sure who they can turn to or if they are still waiting on papers, oftentimes fear will keep them silent.

Most of the time the women are paid next to nothing, $2 for a dance, $10 for a set and $40 for an hour.

via AP.

The scene plays out in immigrant neighborhoods across New York, providing a key source of employment for immigrant women and a haven for men seeking to stave off the loneliness of being far from home. It is a perfectly legal form of entertainment -- there is no stripping, but plenty of hand-holding.

But some of the women say the clubs have a darker side. They complain about exploitative management, sexual advances from clients and even violence. A dancer was recently shot and killed in Queens, and one of the city's largest dollar-dance venues is now the target of a federal lawsuit.

They have yet to find a gunman for the young woman that was killed. They didn't mention her name in the article. Ultimately, the dancers have been coerced to put up signs saying they are treated fairly, but frankly they don't have much of a choice.

Furthermore, the article discusses how this is an old form of entertainment for lonely men and became popular during the depression. Since the economy is tanking, I wonder if there has been an increase in violence faced by women working in all facets of the male entertainment industry. Finally, suggesting that this is the old form of work, one wonders why dancers aren't treated better, even with benefits and stock options. Sometimes the obvious seems ridiculous because sexism is so ingrained in how we look at exotic dancing.

Being from this neck of the woods, I had to post on this hogwash. Apparently a Wyoming police officer shamed young women in a high school assembly by analyzing their MySpace profiles as "slutty" and fodder for inmates' masturbation sessions.

The officer, John F. Gay III of the Cheyenne Police Department, picked out six or seven Windsor High School students' MySpace page and began to criticize photos, comments and other content until one student left the room crying

"He told the entire student body that he had shared her info with a sexual predator in prison," said Ty Nordic, whose daughter Shaylah Nordic's MySpace page was put on display.

I imagine Officer Asshole thought he was utilizing one of those scared straight approaches. Instead he demonstrated what an insensitive and sexist person he really is. When the adult who is both in a position of authority and charged with "protecting" teenagers manages to blame them for their own vulnerability, sexually harass them, and, even more, elicit (or at least pretend to) sexual predators...well, it just seems like grounds for firing and a major re-education effort among fellow police officers.

Has anyone seen non-sexist interventions that educate teenagers about online safety? I imagine a lot of the current curriculum on this stuff tends towards the "blame the victim" mentality.

Thanks to Erin for the heads up.

Cake Wrecks features this mess of an anti-sexual harassment cake (or a bad joke?). I don't really have anything to say about it - it was just too bizarre not to post.

Thanks to Mo in Germany for the link!

I published an op-ed in metro yesterday about the anti-sexual harassment ads set to run on the New York City subways. See Vanessa's awesome take on it here.

In any case, I got an email from someone in response and it sent me into a thought spiral. I try to answer mail as often as possible, especially when it's from those that have thoughtfully considered my argument and made me think in a new/different way with theirs. I consider it part of my role, as someone involved in public debate, to handle criticism, different points of view etc. But when I get mail like that below, I usually end up feeling really powerless and pissed off.

Which sucks, especially when it mirrors exactly what I'm trying to write about. When I'm walking down the street, and some dude leans out of his car and screams, "I'd like to tap that ass!", there's nothing I can do about it. Hollaback has provided an awesome method in public space, and I love them for it, but it's not always the easiest power retrieval to pull off during a rush hour day in NYC.

And what about online? These emails often make me feel as if some dude has just busted into my inbox and shouted. And what do I do about it? Erase it? Try to write back and explain how offensive he is? Or...

Use my awesome feminist powers to publicize his ignorance? Now that sounds more like it.

So, dear readers, I share the email (published here just as I received it) with you:

Dear Courtney,

Chance Noble

I wanted you to know his name and his email address--snhca@exit3.com--in case you'd like to chat with him about this idea, and/or avoid ever dating/hiring him.

We were thrilled when Ann thought up of the brilliant idea to switch up our Friday Feminist Fuck Yous once in a while to a Friday Feminist Fuck Yeah; after all, it is Friday and it's nice to start off the weekend with some happy feelings.

So considering the good news us New Yorkers have had this week about the MTA putting up anti-harassment ads up in the subways, this is our first Friday Feminist Fuck Yeah to Holla Back NYC, Girls for Gender Equity, Right Rides and all of the other advocacy groups and organizations that are fighting subway (and street) harassment.

Don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel!

Transcript below the jump.

(Click to enlarge)

Rumor has it that the MTA in New York City has agreed to post anti-harassment ads on the subway. Finally. As a native New Yorker who has been rubbed up against, jerked off in front of and ass-grabbed more times than I care to count, I couldn't be happier.

Thanks to our friends at Holla Back for the heads up!

Hanaa Rifaey doesn't sleep much. I'll let her explain why. But the next time you find yourself pissed at another policy done wrong, know that Hanaa is on it. And you can be, too. Even if it's a small step, it'll add up.

Here's Hanaa...

Sexualized violence comes with the territory of war. It is an age old tactic and also a byproduct of the pressure of war and the insistence on overt misogyny. So it is no surprise that according to the AP 15 percent of women that have served have experienced some form of sexual trauma. That shouldn't make it any less revolting.

Of the women veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have walked into a VA facility, 15 percent have screened positive for military sexual trauma, The Associated Press has learned. That means they indicated that while on active duty they were sexually assaulted, raped, or were sexually harassed, receiving repeated unsolicited verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature.

Rape is clearly not only a weapon of war, but a byproduct of it creating an internal dysfunction within the military industrial complex.

via AP and ThinkProgess.

I love NYC in the summer. There's always a ton of amazing feminist events going on, and it seems to have begun. This weekend kicks off with Rock for Young Women, an event to support the New York Metro Chapter of the Young Women's Task Force.

Then Monday, the amazing Girls for Gender Equity will be partnering with HollaBack NYC for a post-show talk back about subway harassment after a special showing of the play Standing Clear, described as "an ensemble piece that digs deep into the personalities we commute with each day."

Support and enjoy three awesome organizations in one week. If you're in the NYC area, be sure to check em out.

Huh?

The head of a New York law firm which prides itself as "dedicated to the empowerment of women in the workplace" is being sued for sexual harassment. You just have to love the first line in this article:

A top New York attorney known for representing women in sexual harassment cases is a chauvinist with genital piercings, a lawsuit alleges.

Not just a chauvinist, but with genital piercings. For shame! (Sarcasm included)

Big ups to MBTA!

Boston transit officials have launched a campaign against sexual harassment on the subway. While the "grope patrol" (as they like to call themselves) makes me giggle a little, the campaign has already begun to make a difference in encouraging women to come forward when they're harassed on the train:

"The number of reported groping incidents — from the relatively minor to the really lewd — has doubled. Some women have even preserved clothing, which police officers need for evidence, while others are sending in pictures of guys they snap on their cell phones."

They must have gotten that idea from the Hollaback ladies of Boston!

Via NPR.

An Israeli tourist responded to a group of New Zealand men whistling at her by stripping naked.

On a balmy late-autumn day, she calmly stripped bare to use an ATM - bringing an abrupt halt to both the whistles and the road work - then put her clothes back on and walked away. Sgt. Peter Masters said the woman told police she didn't take kindly to the men's wolf-whistles.

Because you know most gals "take kindly to" unwanted whistling strangers. "She gave the explanation that she had been ... pestered by New Zealand men. She's not an unattractive-looking lady," said Sgt. Masters.

What her level of attractiveness has to do with this, I don't know, but the police were kind enough (sarcasm included) to treat the incident as a "one-off." Meaning that she was still brought down to the police station and chastised for the inappropriateness of her action.

How about that.

This past week it was really warm in San Francisco where I live. As a result people were wearing less clothes, which is unusual in a city as windy and foggy as SF. I love warm weather, but I have to say for some reason it brings out a new kind of creepy that you forget about when you are bundled up. I forgot that I can't wear a dress, skirt, tube top or anything else the reveals flesh without having people honk their horns, whistle, yell at me or get followed. I have for most of my life learned to ignore this just to get about my day and tell myself it is not their fault, but the fault of this over pornified culture that teaches men that women's bodies are public property, and they are just a product of that culture, right? But that doesn't really make me feel much better about the fact that I have to wear a jacket even if I am sweating and sometimes I just wish I was invisible because I don't want to be looked at.

That is my experience, perhaps other women have a different one, but with the exception of some people I have talked to, I think catcalling is an uncomfortable feeling for most women. CNN asks if catcalling is creepy or a compliment.

According to the study in this report 98% of women report being harassed on a daily basis.

When Holly Kearl was researching her master's thesis on street harassment last winter, she was pleasantly surprised that lewd remarks were few and far between. Then spring rolled around. As part of her research, Kearl conducted an anonymous, informal e-mail survey of 225 women on the subject. She found that 98 percent of respondents experienced some form of street harassment at least a few times, and about 30 percent reported being harassed on a regular basis.

"For me, anyone who interrupts my personal space to objectify me or make me feel uncomfortable or threatened is harassing me," she says.

But she found that some women did find it to be a compliment.

Not two months after charges were dropped against an Oklahoma man who took photos up a 16-year-old girl's skirt while she was shopping at Target, a similar Florida case has been thrown out which charged a man who used a mirror to look under a woman's skirt at Barnes & Noble:

Defense attorney Katheryne Snowden argued that the voyeurism charge should be dropped because Presken's accuser didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place under Florida law.

The law under which Presken was charged states, 'It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy.'

This is the same reason the Oklahoma case was thrown out, in which Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote in his dissent:

"What this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress. . . In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress." (Emphasis mine)

Looks like he was right.

A woman who was thrown out of a NYC restaurant (the Caliente Cab Co) for being in the woman's bathroom just won a large settlement.

The incident happened during Pride weekend (ironic, right?) last year, when Khadijah Farmer was burst in on by a staff member while in the woman's bathroom. The staff person told her to leave, even after she showed him ID proving that she was a legal woman (and a biological woman in this case as well). It seems that her "not so feminine" (Khadijah's words) presentation was what caused the incident.

The Transgender Legal Education and Defense Fund took up the case, and they were awarded all of their demands.

From the NYTimes article:

“The settlement was so darn good,� Mr. Silverman said. “We got everything we wanted for Khadijah, and in terms of getting good terms on the issues we were looking at, we couldn’t in good conscience litigate.�

Among the workplace practices that Caliente Cab agreed to adopt in the settlement was to add gender identity and expression to its corporate nondiscrimination policy; to adopt a gender-neutral dress code for its employees; and to amend its employee handbook to state “persons patronizing or employed at Caliente have the right to use the bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identity and expression.�

It's been a pretty good week for the queer community, with this and the CA decision, as well as a possible victory for the trans community in Ontario.

This guy wants to feel your boobs.

So apparently at a software convention called ConFusion, a bunch of guys were standing around and talking about how awesome the world would be if they could just reach out and grab any woman's boobs. And a woman near them piped up that they could touch her breasts, and they all proceeded to grope her. Then, according to a post by some dude who calls himself the Ferrett, pictured above, they asked other women:

"It was exciting, of course. I won't deny it was sexual. But it was a miraculous sexuality that didn't feel dirty, but clean.

Emboldened, we started asking other people. And lo, in the rarified atmosphere of the con, few were offended and many agreed. And they also felt that strange charge. We went around the con, asking those who we thought might be amenable - you didn't just ask anyone, but rather the ones who'd dressed to impress - and generally, people responded. They understood how this worked instinctively, and it worked.

Did you catch that? "The ones who'd dressed to impress"? Almost as if they were "asking for it"? That because they were wearing a tight shirt, their breasts were practically public property, anyway?

By the end of the evening, women were coming up to us. "My breasts," they asked shyly, having heard about the project. "Are they... are they good enough to be touched?" And lo, we showed them how beautiful their bodies were without turning it into something tawdry."

Because what could be more intoxicating than the approval of a room full of tech dudes?

We talked about this. It was an Open-Source Project, making breasts available to select folks. (Like any good project, you need access control, because there are loutish men and women who just Don't Get It.) And we wanted a signal to let people know that they were okay with being asked politely, so we turned it into a project: The Open-Source Boob Project.

For those of you not technologically inclined, "open-source" software means the code is available for anyone to use. All-access. Everyone has a right to it. Just like women's bodies! (Get it? They're so clever!)

Oh, but it doesn't stop there...

That's right, my all-time-fave misogynist magazine has just stooped to a new low and published an actual guide to stalking your girlfriend (or, I suppose, any woman who you feel entitled to). Check it out:

Click image to enlarge.

Sure, it contains a helpful disclaimer that this is illegal in many states. And it claims to be a guide to "eavesdropping" on "friends and foes." But the feature at the bottom of the page makes clear that these are really tips for keeping your little lady (aka your "target") in check, and making sure she's yours and yours alone. It even suggests (under the sub-head "Step Up the Stalk") using GPS tracking. (For a better-intentioned but still creepy guide for stalkers, see this Guardian piece. I was torn when I read it: Is this information more helpful to women -- because now they're aware that this is possible -- or more helpful to stalkers?)

This was a wake-up call to me about how, in the internet era, the term "stalking" has really been trivialized. I know I've definitely joked about "Google-stalking" people, and there's Katha Pollitt's already-classic "Webstalker" essay. Of course, using this terminology is not the same thing as promoting controlling, abusive behavior. But I do think we need to be careful about how we joke about this sort of online voyeurism, because it can be a fine line between kidding around about combing Facebook for info on your ex and laughing at Wal-Mart's classic "Some call it stalking, I call it love" T-shirt or the hoax site "selling" GPS panties or the above Maxim article. Because real-life stalking is, uh, decidedly not hilarious, to put it mildly, and we need to draw a bright line between a common joke of the personal-is-public-online era and the very real threat posed by stalking.

The Stalking Resource Center at the National Center for Victims of Crime has more info on stalking.

If you feel compelled to write a letter to Maxim, here's the email address.

So as I mentioned last week, I have been down and out from blogging for a couple of weeks because of an incident that occurred with my apartment. I am now safe and happy and in a new place to live, but I have had a really stressful couple of weeks.

I'll just start at the beginning. A few weeks ago, I was sitting in my apt (I live alone) and my downstairs neighbor, who I had on many occasions heard screaming at the top of his lungs all types of hate speech, who I knew had some mental health issues-but had been assured was harmless, came to my door and asked me to take down surveillance equipment he believed that I had put up in his apt. I looked at him and just said, I don't know what you are talking about (I know I should have just fessed up!), but if you think there is video equipment in your apt, you should ask the landlord, I have nothing to do with it. He said, don't look at me like I am crazy, to which I responded that I wasn't and asked him to leave. I laughed it off with my friends and thought about the lack of quality mental health support for people, but basically went about my day.

The following evening, I heard all kinds of noises outside my bedroom window that freaked me out, so I slept with a screw driver next to my bed, not really sure why. I went to sleep, got up and went to work the following day.

I get a phone call from my building manager. I guess my crazy neighbor not only thought I had surveillance equipment up in his apt, but that I was also trying to have him killed. He believed that I was running a drug cartel (I watch the Wire a lot, maybe he thought it was my life, not really sure) and he knew about it and as a result I was trying to have him killed. In order to protect himself, he was walking around with a butcher knife and a hammer, waiting for a preemptive attack from me to try and kill him.

There is a controversy evolving around drag performance at a DC gay nightlife hot-spot in Dupont Circle, Club Chaos. Wednesday nights at Chaos are ladies nights, in addition to an occasional performance space for the DC Kings Drag King troupe alternating with a queer burlesque show.

According to the DC Kings, the Dupont Circle Citizens Association "doesn't want that kind of entertainment" in their neighborhood and have effectively banned drag shows at Chaos. While Citizens Association website does not have any information about this incident, they did have a general meeting on Monday, around the same time as news of the cancelled show began to spread.

Maybe this is too much to ask, but wouldn't you think that in 2008, in one of the gayest neighborhoods in DC, a couple of drag performers at a local gay bar wouldn't bother anyone? Apparently not. Check out the flyer for more information, but tonight's performance is being turned in to a protest.

While sex-segregated train cars aren't new to Mexico City, the most widely-used form of transportation, buses, are now including women-only vehicles. (And like Brazil, has pink included on the new "ladies only" buses.) While it seems that women in Mexico City are pretty happy about this change, we go back to the question - is it protection or segregation?

Related: Check out Jessica's Guardian piece on the issue from this past summer.

Sandy Shin is program coordinator at Breakthrough USA. Breakthrough is an international human rights organization that uses media, education and pop culture to promote values of dignity, equality and justice. It has two offices, one in NYC and one in New Delhi, India.

Sandy Shin has a Masters in Human Rights from Columbia University and an undergraduate degree in Women’s Studies and Sociology from the University of Albany. She was the Legal Advocate Project Director at the New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault where she coordinated statewide trainings and provided constituents and the general public with services. Sandy has also been involved with community-driven social movements led by local activists employing anti-racism, anti-war ideologies.

Here's Sandy...

Sexual harassment cases are certainly not new in the arena of sports. There have been several high profile cases related to big and famous athletes sexually harassing women, whether in the hotel after party or at the job. The media has always played a big role in how we perceive the accused verse accuser. Whether the athlete be portrayed as a big evil aggressive monster-beast the general public is repulsed by or the woman as a money hungry *fan* that just got too crazy and was lucky that she got any attention at all, and now she just wants his money! Gender-based and racial stereotypes usually come to the forefront of the popular imagination.

Either way, sexual harassment cases are bad press for all people involved. As we have found here before, trying a case on blogs is not always productive, when you don't know all the facts of a case. So, while I was reading about this case in yesterday's New York Times, thinking oh noes, here we go again. Although this story hasn't gotten a ton of press and mostly I think people are sad the Knicks are continually not in good favor in the media.

Former basketball player Isiah Thomas (I used to love him when I was a kid, I mean LOVE!) is being sued by the former Vice President of marketing and business operations for the Knicks, Anucha Browne Sanders. Shortly after she filed the complaint, she was fired and is suing and one of her complaints is that she was fired because she brought up potentially being sexually harassed by Thomas.

The evolutionary trail from monkey to subway groper has been identified. Money quote:

"The monkeys grab their breasts, and gesture at us while pointing at their private parts. We are afraid that they will sexually harass us," said Mrs Njeri.

(Credit to my friend Darin for the link and the joke.)

A Northern California man was recently sentenced to 13 years in prison after pleading guilty to exposing himself to a woman on a train.

Prosecutors sought the lengthy prison sentence because Burton already had two prior convictions for indecent exposure and a previous conviction on six counts related to sexual assault, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said. [...]

"Our concern was, 'Are we being too lenient? Are we adequately protecting the public?'" Wagstaffe said. "We have a person here who has done this for many, many years. And with all likelihood, he will be doing it again."

This raises some questions for me. For all of our (warranted!) complaining and consciousness-raising about street harassment and public-transit perverts, we devote very little discussion to what (if any) penalties there should be for such behavior.

I'm still figuring out exactly where I stand on this. But I do know that sending the occasional flasher to prison isn't going to solve this problem. Mainly because many harassers/flashers are not in fact "perverts," they're just regular dudes who like to, you know, occasionally assert their patriarchal authority -- not generally thought of as a danger to society (outside of the feminist blogosphere, of course. Har har). We can't (and shouldn't) send all of these guys to prison for a decade.

How should our criminal justice system treat chronic harassers, then? Make these guys go to some sort of therapy, perhaps? Ban them from public transportation? Make them read some feminist literature in an attempt to teach them all women aren't their sexual property? The list of potential "punishments" goes on and on. But adding to an already bloated prison population doesn't seem like the right answer to me. I think there should be penalties for public harassing and flashing. I also think we (as a society) use incarceration too often. What do y'all think?

How sexism keeps women from participating in the YouTube vlogger culture.

My colleague Garance Franke-Ruta put together a panel at YearlyKos to discuss Blogging While Female, or, as The Nation put it, "the toxic online environment for female political pundits." (The panel, which featured our own Jessica, Amanda of Pandagon, and YearlyKos organizer Gina Cooper, was also mentioned in this Washington Post piece about the lack of diversity at the conference.)

So... use this thread as a space to share your own "blogging while female" stories.

If you haven't read this report, Hidden in Plain Sight: Sexual Harassment and Assault on the New York City Subway, you should. It documents what most of you probably already know, that a large majority of people (particularly women) face significant sexual harassment while riding the New York city subway. The report, written from a online survey of subway riders (the MTA partnered with a number of organizations to write and distribute the survey) finds that 63% of people who responded report having been sexually harassed on the NYC subway. 10% of people who responded have been sexually assaulted.

The results got some blog attention last week, go here for Cara's blog about the survey results, Gothamist posted about it as well as the NYTimes Cityroom Blog.

As someone who has been harassed and has numerous friends and acquaintances who experience harassment on a regular basis, these results came as no surprise. What did come as a surprise however, were some of the comments that this news received--the Gothamist comment thread was particularly upsetting. I won't give these jerks the privilege of having their thoughts reposted here, but the general sentiment of these thoughts followed a few patterns. a) Complete denial and disbelief: But I've been riding the subway for and that's NEVER happened to me! b) Blame the victim talk: Women who get harassed on the subway deserve it because they dress like sluts (etc, etc, droning on with misogynistic and disgusting commentary) and to top it all off, c) I hate it when women try to get me to help them when they are being followed or harassed on the subway, it's not my problem and they brought it on themselves.

This might be more sad than the survey results themselves, and probably indicative of why this is a problem in the first place. For some awesome and innovative responses to street harassment, check out Holla Back NYC, one of the groups that partnered with the MTA on this survey. They've got links to holla back's in other cities as well, because we know this isn't just a New York City problem.

Apropos of Vanessa's post, the other night I watched 9 to 5 for the first time in several years, and was really struck by how much its depiction of the workplace holds true today (at least before the film sort of goes off the rails halfway through). Sure, in 2007, bosses who are "sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigots" might have to be a little subtler about their views than they were in 1980. But when the Lily Tomlin character gets passed over for a promotion she richly deserves, then essentially gets called a ball-busting bitch for not being happy about it, I thought about that new study showing women face repercussions when they ask for raises.

And that stupid Marie Claire advice column has so many parallels to how the Dolly Parton character is treated in the movie. Rather than stick up for Dolly when she's seriously sexually harassed by her boss, the other women in the office seem to be relieved that someone else is subject to more harassment than they are. They not only keep quiet -- they want nothing to do with her. When Parton finally snaps, she says to her boss, "Look, I put up with all your pinchin' and starin' because I need this job!" I've definitely heard similar sentiments expressed in 2007.

The examples go on and on. Jane Fonda's character is entering the workforce, scared and clueless, after spending most of her adult years as a housewife, only to be divorced for a younger woman. (Gee, that never happens anymore, does it?) Their boss refers to all female employees as "my girls" -- which infuriates Tomlin's character. But I also know a male boss who refers to most of his female employees as "muffin" or "kid." Seriously.

I can't decide what's more amazing: that a movie depicting the rampant harassment and sexism in the workplace was a runaway blockbuster hit, or that the injustices depicted in this movie -- released 27 years ago -- are still very much a part of working life for American women.

Check out the trailer:

This is just sad. Via Marie Claire's career advice column, "Cubicle Coach":

Dear CC: I work in a male-heavy office where banter often leads to sexual jokes about the female receptionist. I don't want to make a big deal of it, but I do think their talk is offensive. Should I just laugh along like one of the guys?

You're not one of the guys, but you don't want to come off like the Church Lady, either. Try affecting the world-weary condescension women reserve for frat boys everywhere: "Yeah, guys, we all know that Nikki at the front desk is sporting a lovely pair, but c'mon. That kind of stuff doesn't bother me, but if Ms. Tight Sphincter in accruals walks past and hears it, you're toast. And you know I'd miss you all so much." (Emphasis mine)

Ahhhhh! So let's not only condone sexist and possibly sexual harassment behavior at work, but join in on the fun in objectifying "the hot secretary" and make them feel even bigger by demeaning their female supervisor!

This really hit me hard, because 95% of my female friends who work in corporate, male-dominated environments are frequently put in uncomfortable positions of this sort; whether they are the brunt of the joke or just listening to highly sexually explicit and sexist conversations. (I won't even get into the really unpleasant stuff.) Regardless of what it is, it's extremely inappropriate at the very least and often sexual harassment, but they usually shrug it off because they don't want to "cause trouble" or don't think reporting them will do anything.

So, this issue is addressed in a highly popular woman's magazine and what do they tell you to do: Play along! Be one of the guys! They'll love you for it!

In fact, why don't you just show them your tits! You'd totally be in! Ugh, ugh, ugh.

P.S. "Church Lady"??

Thanks to MAC for bringing my attention to this bullshit.

Stomach-turning story of the day.

And a runner-up.

Someone in the ever-growing street harassment thread mentioned that this issue would make good documentary fodder... Well, a Penn State women's studies student made a video of what harassment is like for women on campus. Check it out: