Confessions of a feminist promo girl

While reading through the myriad of Spring 2019 feminist legal theory blog posts, I noticed a trend among many: A confession to being a bad feminist. Whether it was an admission to watching The Bachelor or participating in cultural, sexist traditions or religiously watching Keeping Up with the Kardashians, each author questioned their feminist identity.

After watching Roxane Gay’s Ted Talk on her “bad feminist” ways, I couldn’t help but to think of my own. So yes, I too confess: I am a bad feminist.

How? I absolutely capitalize on my femininity every weekend to help pay my way through law school.

As we all know, law school costs are an arm and a leg, and then some. To help pay for my living expenses, I work as a “promo girl” on the weekends. I essentially do promotional marketing, as an independent contractor, on behalf of marketing companies. Their clients are big alcohol brands like Bud Light, Stella Artois, Jim Beam, Maker’s Mark, Hornitos, Effen Vodka, and Courvoisier cognac just to name a few. I go wherever they send me - clubs, bars, restaurants, golf courses, or professional sports games - to provide complimentary alcohol samples, educate consumers on the brand, and most importantly, push sales. Even though I do not receive a commission, high sales equals job security.

The work itself is minimal. We simply get paid to talk to consumers and the shifts are just 4-5 hours long. I make my own schedule, so if I choose not to work during reading period, my employer is okay with that. Best part is the pay. If I work through the weekend, I can pocket anywhere between $500-800, which contributes to my monthly bills and permits me to financially assist family when needed. Sounds pretty nice, right?

Well let me explain the reality of it. Consumers see us in a different light. They treat us in ways they normally wouldn’t treat us if we were out of uniform. For instance, I’ve had consumers rub my back, touch my waist, and walk up and hug me out of nowhere. I’ve had consumers inappropriately comment on my body and tell me creepy things like, “I’ll buy anything from you looking like that.” I’ve even had a club owner tell me, “Didn’t your dad tell you to never give anything away for free?” He thought it was funny.

If you work in the industry, you know the unwanted touching, objectification, and inappropriate, sexual comments come with the territory. So generally, women learn to smile, laugh, and then turn to roll their eyes out of “professionalism.” However, I’ve never been one to play it off. I look at them with the “Seriously?” stare or I move so they stop touching me.

Even though that's my way of fighting the patriarchy in this field, I feel like I should do more, especially as a feminist. I’m already letting my fellow feminists down my conforming to the “promo girl” stereotypes and capitalizing on it. Further, I’m moving the movement backwards by being a part of an industry that normalizes the objectification of women, minimizing us as a whole. So the least I can do is say something or move their hand, and not feel bad about it.

I think there are two things in play here: 1) the power dynamic; and 2) who's responsible for educating the obnoxious consumers?

Even though our marketing companies say they do not tolerate sexual harassment and claim they want all promo girls to work in a safe and comfortable environment, none of us dare to report the things we endure for job security purposes. Many of us keep our mouths shut because the business reports back to our big company client, and if the business speaks highly of us, we will get booked more often. However, if we make waves at a business and that information flows up the ladder, we risk losing work.

To maintain steady employment, and thus pay our bills, we put up with the behavior. So like many women in other professions, there’s an embedded power dynamic that must be overcome to address the issue. We also need our employers to have our backs, and mean it.

Maybe then we will speak up without the fear of retaliation. But even if that were the case, should the onus really be on us? We already have to deal with the behavior, and now we have to treat it? But if not us, who is going to educate these people? You would think with all the public discourse on sexual harassment, consumers would treat us with respect, regardless of what we're wearing or doing, but I see from personal experience, we still have a long way to go.

So yes, I am a bad feminist on the weekends to make ends meet, but thanks to feminism, I have the freedom to choose to study law during the week and do promos on the weekends to pay for it. Additionally, thanks to this course, I’ve been empowered to speak up and educate the obnoxious hereon out…and that’s a promise to my feminist comrades, good and bad alike. 

The gendered effects of Medicaid work requirements

In January 2018, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that it would allow states to require employment as a precondition to Medicaid eligibility. While unsurprising, considering the Trump administration’s constant maneuvers to undermine universal healthcare, this is the first time CMS has endorsed such a program. Several conservative states have already pounced on this opportunity: Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin. Several more states have submitted requests to implement work requirements, which are now pending.

As Medicaid is a joint federal/state program, states must adhere to certain guidelines, set forth in the Social Security Act. However, they are authorized under §1315 of the Act to waive some of its provisions in order to implement experimental, or pilot, programs. Many states have used this authority to provide broader coverage through these special programs (e.g., expanding Medicaid eligibility to include nonelderly adults, children with disabilities, HIV-positive individuals, etc.). Unfortunately, states are also empowered to adopt restrictive measures, such as work requirements.

These work requirements differ in scope, but generally mandate that beneficiaries of Medicaid spend 80 hours per month, or 20 per week, on either paid employment or other “qualifying activities,” such as school, volunteer work or job training. Failure to participate in and report these activities will result in loss of Medicaid eligibility (though this is done differently in the various states). In Arkansas, for example, if a beneficiary fails to report sufficient work activities for three months, they will be “locked out” of Medicaid for the remainder of the calendar year.

The tragic results of these programs are already becoming apparent in states such as Arkansas, which requirement went into effect in June 2018. As of March 2019, over 18,000 Medicaid beneficiaries in Arkansas had lost their healthcare for failure to comply with the reporting requirements. Of those, only about 10% have since reapplied and regained coverage in 2019.

This clearly impacts numerous marginalized people, considering factors such as rurality, computer literacy and English proficiency. It is also, of course, a gendered issue. This is largely due to the demographics of those most likely to live in poverty and face barriers to consistent employment. While many groups are disproportionately harmed, this post will focus on the challenges that women in particular face in complying with work requirements.

First, single mothers account for most of the low-income adults who qualify for Medicaid. These women often work part-time jobs with inconsistent hours in order to care for their children (or because these are the only jobs available). In industries like food service and retail, hours vary from week to week and offer little flexibility, so missing work for any reason may result in job loss. Due to this instability, gaps in employment are common for low-wage workers. However, in some states, failing to meet the work requirement even for one month can result in the loss of healthcare.

Significantly, women are more likely than men to be responsible for caring for children, which impacts their availability to work. While all states have some form of an exemption for parents of dependent children, Indiana only exempts parents of children under the age of six. Even exempting parents of all minor children is arguably still insufficient, considering that for a child with special needs, age may not be relevant to the level of care needed.

Additionally, women often care for incapacitated family members who are not their children. The states’ exemptions do not sufficiently address this situation either. For example, Kentucky only exempts primary caregivers to a dependent if the dependent lives in the same household. It also limits the number of people who may claim this exemption to one per household, again failing to contemplate myriad circumstances. A Medicaid beneficiary in Arkansas reported that caring for her parents restricted her to looking for work in the evenings, which was difficult to find.

Practically, exemptions offer little protection for some of the most marginalized groups. Although some states automatically exempt beneficiaries through their own data, such as those already fulfilling another social program’s work requirement, or those known to have young children or a medical condition, they overlook many others. This puts the burden of identifying and reporting an exemption on the Medicaid recipient. Even if a someone qualifies for an exemption, she may not know that she does, or how to report it to the state (which is why even broadening exempted categories is not an ideal solution either).

Looking ahead, there may be hope that these requirements will not gain traction. Already, the D.C. Circuit Court has blocked Kentucky’s program twice, and just vacated the approval of Arkansas’s as well. In these rulings, it emphasized that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is not considering how these programs promote the goals of Medicaid, namely, providing medical care. This rationale finds strong support in similar prior cases where states attempted to implement restrictive requirements solely to save money. Hopefully, this provides a temporary remedy for those who might otherwise lose their healthcare, though it comes late for many in Arkansas who already have.

The Supreme Court could resolve this issue by ruling work requirements impermissible as a precondition for Medicaid. Yet, even if the court does grant cert, its current conservative composition might result in a stamp of approval for work requirements. It remains to be seen whether the government will take any further action.

"Dear Mr. Foland": Addressing male domination of the legal profession

Dear Mr. Foland,
We are in receipt of your application materials ... Thank you for your interest in our office.

The above is an excerpt from an email I received the other day after sending in my application materials for a fall externship. It represents the typical response I get from potential employers; it is polite, informative, and most importantly, the respondent presumes that I am a man.

When I apply for jobs, a majority of the responses I get address a Mr. Taylor Foland. As someone with a gender neutral name, I obviously understand why this happens. Taylors come in all shapes, sizes, and genders, and my application materials do not include any gender indicators such as Mr., Ms., or preferred pronouns. But, before I came to law school, this didn't happen at all...not even once. And, it happens often. About 70-80% of the responses I get address Mr. Foland. So, what is it about the legal profession that makes my resume read male?

First of all, let's talk about my resume. I've spent a lot of time crafting my resume over the years, but for the majority of law school my resume has included one or more of the following positions: museum educator at two different history museums, law clerk at the Children's Law Centre, and Law Clerk at the Sacramento City Attorney's Office. In addition to my professional obligations I also list: President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, Co-Chair of the Women's Law Association, and Member of Law Review. And for a fun little twist to the resume, I've also included a "Personal Interests" section which includes (beware: it's a little cringe): bread and pastry baking (hit me up if you want some baked goods!), aerial dance (a PC way to say pole dancing...it's great exercise for the body and mind!), clothing design (a nod to the sewing machine I break out every now and again), and soccer.

That is, more or less, the sum total of my resume. Again, there are no obvious gender markers such as name prefixes or preferred pronouns. My name "Taylor Foland" is on the top of the page in larger text than anything else. That's about it. So, what is it about that information that leads employers to address me as Mr. Foland?

What strikes me as odd right off the bat is that a lot of the things on my resume indicate a female identity per societal standards and norms. For example, education is a field typically occupied by women and family law is largely comprised of female attorneys. If that wasn't enough, surely most people would think that leadership roles in a reproductive justice society and a women's law club screams, "female!", or that clothing design and dance are extracurriculars associated more often with women. Are the people reading my resume just progressive? Are the people reading my resume even reading it at all??

My experiences as "Mr. Foland" have lead me to consider the ways in which the entire legal system is dominated by men. Male-domination occurs at almost every stage in the process to becoming a lawyer: getting to law school, law school itself, and the legal profession. In such an environment, it is no surprise that an applicant with a gender-neutral name, regardless of the content of their resume, will be presumed male. I will focus on the final stage of domination: the legal profession.

To quickly comment on the first two, barriers often discourage women from applying to law school, and/or lead to "poorer" performances by women in law school, among other things. Some of those barriers include the lack of female law school professors and mentors, emotional labour responsibilities that women often take on in addition to their academic, financial, and personal responsibilities, and systemic sexism that expects certain behaviours of women (agreeable, smiling, pleasant) and pushes women into certain professions (aka "pink-collared jobs" such as nursing, waitressing, and teaching).

But, relevant to Mr. Foland are the barriers in the professional realm of the law, where "his" resume gets read and analyzed. Because although women enrollees have surpassed men enrollees in American law schools for the past three years, female representation in leadership positions (partners and equity partners) and retention rates of female employees demonstrate persisting inequalities.

Why do these inequalities exist? Interpretations of a 2018 Law Society survey suggest some reasons:

In an international survey of over 7,500 women lawyers conducted by the Law Society, the top three barriers to women’s career progression were reported to be unconscious bias on the part of senior colleagues (52% of respondents), an unacceptable work/life balance (48%), and a belief that the traditional networks and routes to promotion in law are male orientated (46%).

Another key factor that others writing on the topic have suggested is the "focus on presenteeism" in the legal profession, or the requirement that lawyers be present in the workplace at all times to conduct their work. This approach disproportionately turns women away from the legal profession after a while, because women often rely on flexible work schedules once starting a family (Note: there is a discussion to be had here about why women have to become more flexible, while their male partners - in heterosexual relationships - often do not).

All of these factors contribute to the male domination of the legal profession. Not only is the build up to becoming a lawyer inaccessible to women, but the profession itself is not conducive to female involvement. When it is men who typically succeed in a profession, it is not surprising that an applicant with a name sometimes given to men is presumed to be one.

Having identified that male-domination exists in the legal field, which is probably not a surprising realization, the question remains: what do we do about it? And, what do I do about my alter-ego, Mr. Foland?

In my opinion, flexibility in all workplaces for both men and women alleviates gender-based pressure to be present/perform at work in ways that go against other commitments. Next, the legal profession must ensure that there are women in senior positions, both at law schools and law firms. Up and coming female lawyers also need greater access to mentoring and sponsorship from those already in the field (e.g. breaking down gender-barriers with respect to networking events). Finally, men need to engage more directly with the equality debate in all aspects of life. 

As to what I, Mr./Ms. Foland should do, I admit that it is something I still grapple with. On the one hand, misgendering has provided me a unique advantage in interviews. Surprising (or correcting in an email) an interviewer with my true gender identity often puts me in a better position in an interview. In a weird way, I have a slight upper hand because they made a mistake.

On the other hand, I recognize the problems associated with this method, which I have followed up until this point. First, misgendering is a real problem for trans and nonbinary individuals. As a cis-female, is my capitalization of misgendering disrespectful and trivializing of trans/nonbinary issues? I think it probably is. Secondly, by failing to put gender markers on my resume, am I taking advantage of male domination by knowing I may pass as male and thus get a (potential) leg up in the application process? To what extent does feeding into the current state perpetuate it? These are all questions I have that I have not figured out the answer to. But, they are questions I will keep asking myself as I edit and submit my resume in the future.

That's all that Ms. Foland has to say about the matter for now. 

Captain Marvel (Part II): Feminist-Adjacent Themes Galore

This is the second part of my review of Captain Marvel, I encourage you to read the first part before reading this second part: Captain Marvel (Part I): The Role Model We Need. The first post dealt with the issues that most people see as implicating feminism, such as sexism in the military, getting back up after getting knocked down, and my personal favorite, women being too emotional. This post discusses issues that, while not necessarily implicating feminism at first glance, are clearly a part of feminism, such as creating your own family, first impressions, and how we as a society and as individuals treat refugees.

A SPOLIER ALERT IS NOW IN EFFECT. If you have not seen Captain Marvel, this serves as a warning that spoilers lie ahead.

One of the themes that the film tackles is creating your own family. The movie depicts Carol as this headstrong, emotional, courageous woman, from her childhood into adulthood. Her father did not like Carol's recklessness, and he seemed to almost forbid her from behaving like that. Dialogue and plot suggest that Carol had left her father, and started a new family with Maria. Maria is a single mother raising a daughter that Carol affectionately called "Lieutenant Danger". Maria was also in the Airforce and worked closely with Carol, becoming her best friend. Numerous pictures show them spending holidays together as a family unit, and Maria's daughter even refers to Carol as "Auntie Carol". A huge part of trying to defy gender expectations is having people leave your life that do not support your choice to live as your authentic self. It was great to see a new family form, and one that seemed supportive and genuinely happy. Such families are not often portrayed, and when they are portrayed, the depictions are seldom happy.

Next, first impressions drove the entire plotline of the film. Throughout the first half of the movie, we are led to believe that the Kree, a society led by an artificial intelligence (AI) and one that Carol is initially a part of, are trying to protect planets from the Skrull. The viewer is led to believe that the Skrull are the ones attaching the Kree. However, in a Pride and Prejudice-esq twist, we learn halfway through the movie that the Kree is not just an empire, but colonial in nature. Further, we learn and that the Skrull refused to submit to their rule. Because of this, the Kree essentially destroyed the Skrulls’ home planet. The Skrulls that are left are scattered throughout the galaxy and are all refugees. Thus, Carol is forced to question everything she believed, and makes the tough decision to help the Skrull.

While this may not seem directly related to feminism, I believe it very much is. Most feminist theories are based on the presumption that we should question societal norms and attitudes, especially in terms of power structures. For as far back as she can remember, Carol has believed that the Skrulls were not refugees, but rather were terrorists and aggressors. She had to re-evaluate everything she knew about the Skrulls and the Kree while choosing which side to take. In doing so, Carol shows a great example of how to be a proper feminist and how to be a good ally to marginalized groups.
Because Carol's re-evaluation is what we ask feminism and feminist to do every day. We ask everyone to re-evaluate societal norms and perceptions and ask why those norms are in place and whether they are just and correct. Feminism as movement has done the same as well. Originally focused on getting upper- and middle-class white women rights while using rather reductive and racist talking points, feminism was not all that inclusive. Bell Hooks accuses the movement of not being completely honest with itself, its origins or its focus, and encourages it to continue to reevaluate itself. And I believe the movement has continued to do so, becoming more and more inclusive towards all women, regardless of race, sexual orientation, economic status, and many other factors. That being said, this inner reflection needs to continue to ensure that all women are heard and are having their rights fought for.

Finally, the film asks us to re-evaluate the way we see refugees. The Skrull themselves are shapeshifters, and their forms, while not ugly, are also not aesthetically pleasing. The Kree tend to look more human. This symbolism is not lost on the audience. We were told the Skrull were bad, that they change their shape to assimilate into the population, and then they take over the planet. Because the Skrull look bad, the audience is more susceptible to believing the narrative the Kree give about the Skrull's actions. This is extremely relevant today when talking about refugees and the politics surrounding those seeking asylum, or even those seeking to immigrate into our country. They often just want to find a safe place to live and be accepted into their new society. And, just like the Skrull, most, if not all, refugees pose no great threat to society or those in the society unless they are threatened. It was great to see this portrayed in such a nuanced and non-preachy way.

Again, not all would see this as a facially or explicitly feminist message, but I see feminist thinking in it. The Skrull are just trying to live their lives as best they can, and they ask Carol to judge them based on their actions, and not on stereotypes or narratives she has heard about them. Most feminists want the same thing; they want to be judged on their actions, and not on the basis of stereotypes based on their sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic a person cannot change.

Overall, I loved the movie because it embedded so many themes in such a great story, all while managing to not get preachy about it. There were probably a couple other overt themes I did not explore in Part I or here, I encourage you to leave a comment on other themes you saw in the movie as well!

Captain Marvel (Part I): The Role Model We Need

I recently watched Captain Marvel. Going into the movie, I had low expectations. The reviews had not been great. And although I was excited to see a woman in the leading role of a super hero movie, I also was getting bored of the almost exclusively white genre. So, with mixed emotions, I entered the movie theater.

A SPOLIER ALERT IS NOW IN EFFECT. If you have not seen Captain Marvel, this serves as a warning that spoilers lie ahead.

Boy, was I thrilled with the movie. It touched on so many different issues, all important in feminist theory. And even though it was set in the '90s, it tackled issues that are still relevant and, indeed, hot topics today. Because it tackled so many amazing themes, I will write two separate posts about "Captain Marvel". This post will deal with the issues that most people see as implicating feminism, such as sexism in the military, getting back up after getting knocked down, and my personal favorite, women being too emotional. The second post will deal with issues that, while not necessarily implicating feminism at first glance, are clearly a part of feminism, such as creating your own family, first impressions, and how we as a society and as individuals treat refugees.

First, the movies portrayal of women in the military was brief, but excellently done. The movie did not try to sugarcoat any of the history of the military and its treatment of women, including women of color. It specifically stated and showed that both Carol Danvers (Captain Marvel) and Maria Rambeau, a woman of color and Carol's best friend, were not allowed to fly in combat because they are female. It was also heavily implied that Maria Rambeau, a black woman, had a much harder time getting any flying time, but that Carol kept supporting her, and Maria kept supporting Carol. This type of portrayal is just as important now as it was then. With the high level of sexual violence in the military-and given that it is still considered a boy’s club-it was amazing to see two strong women support each other and learn to thrive an environment that is hostile towards women.

The next major theme I noticed was getting back up after being knocked down. In the film, and throughout her life, there were numerous times where someone or something knocked Carol down. The Kree AI, one of the main antagonists in the movie, when trying to break Carol, remind her of all the times she has fallen down. The Kree AI tries to show her how flawed and week she is. And the Kree AI stop the memory right there. And for a minute, we see Carol believe it. But then she remembers what happens after all those times she fell. She gets up. With no tears, with no sign of pain, with no hesitation, she gets up. She does not consider her falling a flaw, because every time she fell, she got back up, stronger and more determined than ever. While most Marvel movies push this (Black Panther being the other clear example), this was by far the clearest message of it in any superhero movie thus far. To fall is human. We are imperfect beings. It is not how we fall, but how we choose to get back up. It is not our flaws or are mistakes that define us, it is how we learn and grow from them. This message was so well done, and it was great to see it being done through the lens of a smart, strong, courageous woman for once.

The last theme, and my personal favorite theme in the movie, is the stereotype of women being too emotional. Two scenes on this theme come to mind. Both involve Carol and Yon-Rog, her captain who is portrayed by Jude Law. In the beginning, Carol and Yon-Rog are training together. Yon-Rog tells Carol that she can never best him because she is too emotional, so she cannot think clearly. This was a clear use of the trope "women are too emotional to think rationally." And Yon-Rog said this while Carol was being no more emotive than an average person, male or female, in a hand-to-hand combat situation. And while the scene itself is not significant, it sets up second scene perfectly. At the end of the movie, Carol has clearly won, and Yon-Rog has lost. Knowing that he cannot beat her if she uses her powers, he tries to bait her. He says that she never was able to beat him at hand-to-hand combat, and because of that, she will never know true victory until she does. Yon-Rog wants her to fight him using only hand-to-hand combat because he knows he can beat her, but if she uses her powers, he would not stand a chance. Carol's response: she uses her powers to blast him hundreds  yards across the desert, flies over to him and pronounces "I have nothing to prove to you."

Yon-Rog tried to rely on Carol being "overly emotional" to win the argument. The issue: Carol was never "overly emotional." Having feelings and showing them does not make you overly emotional, at least not in the way that Yon-Rog thought Carol was. Carol cared about people, but her instincts to protect those and serve the greater good were always there. And in that moment, she was thinking logically. She may have or may not have been able to beat Yon-Rog in hand-to-hand combat, but she did not need to risk those odds. She was infinitely more powerful than him, so why risk it? These two scenes turn the emotional female trope on its head; they show that just because you care about people, does not mean that you are overly emotional.

Overall, "Captain Marvel"was a fantastic movie with a lot of positive messages, and I would highly recommend the movie for those seeking strong female representation.

Sometimes, the customer is wrong

I spent the year prior to beginning law school the way I imagine many other millennial humanities majors do: working at various part-time jobs while living with my parents. After leaving resumes at what felt like every business in my hometown, I was called to interview for a hostess position at a local restaurant and brewery.

Reading off of the standard list of questions, the interviewer asked what I thought about the mantra that “the customer is always right.” A predictable question with a litany of acceptable answers. “Excellent service is crucial to running a successful business.” “This job is about putting others first, going above and beyond for them.”

But this question irked me for some reason. Perhaps because I had already accepted a different job, I felt like being excessively honest. I responded that I wouldn’t go so far as to say “always,” because while good service is important, there comes a point when employees’ comfort and safety outweigh pandering to an irrational customer. The interviewer seemed surprised. She acknowledged that management cared about the employees’ well-being, quickly adding that customer satisfaction is still the most important aspect of their operation.

Reflecting on the question, my mind had snapped back to a situation at my previous job, as an English instructor in Peru. I had a student, a much older man, who would arrive at the school obnoxiously early every morning (before the rest of the class was around). Initially, we would converse casually until the other students trickled in and I could begin the lesson. However, this "friendship" soon snowballed into him mumbling comments about my body in class and badgering me to go out for drinks with him.

I demurred day after day, perfecting the art of avoidance: lingering downstairs, “pouring my coffee” for 15 minutes, asking the secretary questions, and organizing dry erase markers. This was not a very punctual class either, so most days I had to start teaching with only this student in the room.

My boss was a British man, only a few years older than I was. For context, whenever I didn’t have a class to teach, he would task me with standing outside handing flyers to passersby because “sex sells.” Unsurprisingly, when I told him about the creepy student situation, he joked that I should reciprocate the advances to help guarantee the guy’s continued enrollment. It was due to his pressure that I went to lunch with the student after class one day, supposedly to practice his English (we needed to have a reputation for “going the extra mile”).

I realize that teaching is not like a typical service job, and students are not usually thought of as customers. However, in a private school setting, there can be the same pervasive culture of maintaining cash flow and improving reputation at any cost to employees. This is to say that, for many women, putting up with difficult people for the sake of good business can go much further than plastering a smile and remembering to fill the water glasses regularly.

Recently, a restaurant security camera video went viral. It depicted a waitress, Emelia Holden, tackling a male customer who had groped her. She was hailed for standing up for herself, refusing to be disrespected. Other women who had been harassed before in the restaurant industry said that seeing the video had “empowered them to react more assertively next time.” Holden reported that she was confident in her reaction, knowing she would have the support of the restaurant owners and her coworkers.

For every story like this, there are many left untold of women who ignore harassment or laugh it off. A friend of mine working as a server once complained about a regular customer who always tried touch her inappropriately. Because the customer was a close friend of the restaurant owner, her boss refused to do anything about it. 

While some advocate for assertiveness in the workplace as a way for women to avoid being taken advantage of (lean in?), it would be naïve to assume that employees all have equal bargaining power to their employers. Women can be assertive and demand respect, but often only insofar as their employers allow it. Many part-time and low-wage workers are at will employees, meaning that they can be terminated without cause. This, along with other factors such as language barriers and immigration status, can lock women into a harmful work environment.

It is unclear whether legal solutions would play a role in solving these issues, considering that many do not have the time and resources to commence a lawsuit. However, some suggest that steps be taken in training management on sexual harassment, in the hopes of reducing internal problems and building support for employees. Another option is to employ more women in higher up positions in this sector, with the idea that they may be more empathetic to issues like harassment.

Ultimately, I am probably reading too deeply into an old adage that doesn’t necessarily imply so much. But abiding by the contention that the customer is always right promotes the idea that profits are all that matter, disregarding the reality that women are more likely than men to experience harassment in the course of work. Some even argue that the way the service industry is run keeps women in a subservient position and normalizes sexism. While many things may be improving, these traditions perpetuate the reality that many women must suffer in order to maintain employment.

Combatting the attorney archetype

Growing up, my family instilled the belief in me that if I worked hard enough, I could make any of my dreams a reality. Attending law school was that dream for me. I believed my capacity to empathize, combined with my ambition and the skills I would learn in law school would make me an effective advocate. However, those outside of my immediate family seemed to have a different impression of my place in law school. Their comments persisted throughout my time as a law student.

"But . . . you don't seem like the lawyer-type." This is the sentiment I hear over and over again when I tell community members that I am a law student. Every time I hear that comment, I cannot help but question what qualities I am missing that make it difficult for others to perceive me (or even respect me) as a law student.

When I think about who I am as a person, a number of different traits cross my mind. For example, I would say that I am empathetic, independent, nurturing, and ambitious. Our socially constructed categories of masculinity and femininity would place independence and ambition in the former category and place empathy and nurturance in the latter category. This separate spheres ideology becomes problematic when people assign value to those categories and decide what qualities are valuable and which ones are not.

I always saw myself as an amalgamation of different qualities, but now these traits were being broken up into categories and instead of syncing up harmoniously, these traits were being weighted, categorized, and assessed differently by others – especially in professional settings. These traits had been set up on opposing sides, with the socially constructed traits of femininity (which I thought of as personal strengths) being considered professional weaknesses and liabilities. In light of this, I constantly wonder who I should be.

In their germinal law review article, Rand Jack and Dana Crowley Jack posit that a number of female professionals, especially female attorneys, have the same internal tension of defining themselves in their profession.

One solution women have adopted is to mute their “feminine” characteristics. Pixar recently released a new animated short film that illustrated this issue. Purl is the story of a ball of pink yarn who begins work at a male-dominated office. The men in the office make it clear to Purl that she doesn’t belong in the office. They ignore her ideas and exclude her from office activities. In an effort to avoid being shut out, she decides to change who she is to fit into her office’s culture – going as far as changing her appearance and speaking in a deeper voice. To her surprise, it worked.

But as Jack’s article finds, even when women mute their feminine characteristics and attempt to assert more masculine characteristics, they are stuck in a catch 22 because no matter what they do, they can never really "get it right".

If a woman chooses to reject the usual lawyer image and follow a less combative form of participation, she may be labeled too feminine, and others may doubt her fiber as a tough lawyer. A woman attorney must walk the fine line between being feminine and being assertive. . . If she is too feminine she is accused of trying to use it to her advantage and is therefore resented, but if she is equally assertive to her male counterpart, she is accused of being too aggressive.

This identity strain is an added burden on women in the workplace. As women, we exert so much energy to define the "right" persona for our office culture, that it inhibits time, effort, and energy from focusing on the work we were hired to do.

It further shakes me to my core to think that seemingly masculine traits have become the new "gender neutral" characteristics that have embodied the archetype of lawyers. Not only does this signal that women must change themselves to succeed in the legal profession, but an inherent message is sent to women that “feminine” qualities have little to no value in the workplace. It seems like I have to choose between being a lawyer or being myself.

But is it really true that adopting masculine characteristics would make me a better lawyer? Is it really true that masculinity is synonymous with professionalism? An earlier blogger on this forum, Alcestis, posted about how they didn’t agree that “becoming a man in a ‘man's world’ will help produce a better and more efficient working environment.” Just because someone embodies "feminine" characteristics, doesn't relegate their opinions and contributions as meaningless. In fact, these unique traits may help provide valuable perspectives and solutions to increase efficiency and effectiveness in the workplace.

When I think about my future as a lawyer, I think about this balancing game women must play to fit into their office culture. I also think about the importance of incorporating more "feminine" features into the work environment.

I believe that people should not have to mute characteristics society has devalued to fit in. Lawyers need to be fierce, professional, hardworking, and competent advocates. Those traits and femininity are not mutually exclusive. In fact, femininity may even enhance features essential to lawyering.

Going forward, while I will continue to hold myself to highest professional and ethical standards, I will not mute who I am as a person to fit into an office. While I don't want to be relegated as outsider, I think it would be worse to change who I am and incidentally perpetuate the devaluation of femininity in the workplace. I may not be the lawyer type, but I will do everything in my power to fight the one-dimensional notion of who a lawyer is and can be.

Bitter Flowers: Chinese street girls in Paris

In the late 1990’s, China’s economy underwent rapid growth. The Northeast region of China became the frontier of this industrial transformation. Traditional manufacturing became obsolete and as a result, the rate of unemployment became very high. Unfortunately, most of the laid-off workers were women. Many of these women flocked to Paris hoping to make their fortunes, but hunger and homelessness forced them to work as prostitutes. In 2013, French director Nael Marandin wanted to tell the story of these Chinese prostitutes in Paris. Marandin had been volunteering with the World Health Organization for more than seven years, and he regularly provides medical and legal services to sex workers in Paris. Marandin’s 2015 film, She Walks(La Marchevse), surprised many audiences because it reveals the real life of the Chinese street girls.

According to the report of Le Parisien, on December 13, 2016, Paris police found a 39-year-old Chinese female corpse in an apartment in the Notre-Dame-de-Nazareth district. The deceased woman was recognized as a Chinese sex worker. She had been beaten before she was killed. This situation is not rare in France. By 2016, the number of Chinese ‘registered’ sex workers had reached 1,300 or more in Paris. But Government records indicate that the total number of Parisian sex workers consists of between 5,000 to 8,000. Chinese sex workers take up a big part of them.

During this period, an increasing number of Chinese women went to Paris because prostitution in France was legal until April, 2016. Many of these women came to France because they and their families were poor and believed that they could make a big fortune quickly. What's more, some women are making money for a luxurious life through prostitution. Whatever the purpose, Chinese sex workers are all trapped in the same dilemma. Eighty-six percent of Chinese sex workers admitted that they suffered at least one violent act from a customer. Most violence occurred when a sex worker insisted that the client should wear a condom.

Many cases are similar to the report in Le Parisien. On August 2, 2012, a sex worker from Jiangxi, China was strangled by a Palestinian young man after he refused to pay her. Besides physical harm, Chinese sex workers' property is also in danger. It is easy for customers to rob Chinese sex workers because these women exist in very fragile circumstances in France and it is difficult for them to protect themselves.

The primary issue is that almost all of the sex workers are without a required legal residence permit and, thus, cannot call the police or contact officials to ask for help . Second, local Chinese people distain the Chinese sex workers. Even if they beg for help, it is very possible that no one is willing to intervene. As a result, sex workers are forced to bear and digest the harm that they experience from society. What they believe is that they must endure pain and sorrow because they need money for their families or themselves. No matter what happens to their bodies or their hearts, Chinese girls will bite the bullet.

Prostitution is a topic relate to many fields of law including immigration law, administrative law and criminal law. From the angle of criminal law, Chinese sex workers are exposed to sexual assault, robbery and murder every day. French law punishes pimps and customers. The regulation of la penalisation des clients stipulates that the penalty for sex worker clients can reach 1500 euros, while the 'recidivism' of repeated transactions can be fined by up to 3750 euros. But punishing pimps and customers doesn't solve the problem. Sex workers have held demonstrations to protest the government's decision because they are losing customers.

In order to maintain their livelihoods, they have no choice but to cut prices, even to as low as 10 euros per trick. Occasionally, they are forced to engage in sex without condoms. What they express is that their desire for money is greater than their desire for legal protection. However, helping sex workers make money is not the duty of law. Another way of caring for sex workers that has emerged is 'Lotus Bus' in Paris. Lotus Bus regularly sends out free condoms to sex workers. Also, this organization holds AIDS prevention activities and other helpful programs for sex workers.

Besides France’s efforts, what are other ways to deal with Chinese sex workers’ problems regarding their livelihoods and the need to keep them away from the constant threat of danger. We need to address the root of the question. The source of this story goes back to human trafficking. More resources and money need to be put into preventing and punishing human trafficking. Another problem is the conflict between legalization of sex workers and punishment for their clients. Governments can assist sex workers by setting up career training programs to improve their professional skills. Courts are able to seal or eliminate records of sex workers if they stay in the training programs for a specific period of time. Another area for consideration is legalizing the contractual relationship between sex workers and customers as has occurred in Germany. This provides a means for sex workers to sue customers who refuse to pay for their services.

Bitter Flowers, which came out in 2017, is the latest movie regarding Chinese sex workers in Paris and was featured at various film festivals, such as Busan International Film Festival. Just like the name of the film, Chinese sex workers in Paris are living with sorrow and in darkness. Meanwhile, they dress like flowers to attract the attention of potential customers. Their difficulties push them to become stronger in the frigid Paris winter, but bitter flowers also need love and care to thrive.

Elite hypocrisy about working class white and rural women? The case of the West Virginia teachers strike

I've been reading elite bashing of working class and rural whites for years now, and I published my first article about it as long as 2011.  But the election of 2016 brought this bashing by the chattering classes to a fever pitch, and I've occasionally blogged about the phenomenon, as here and here. 

One "series" I see on Twitter begins:  "And in today's episode of:  I Bet I Know Who You Voted For..." That is the common preface to re-Tweets of headlines that could previously have appeared in the "Darwin Awards" or perhaps the petty crime pages of a local paper.  I'm pasting one below.  It re-Tweets a Fox News Tweet that reads "Substitute allegedly brought boxed wine to school, vomited in class."

Another re-Tweets this Fox News Tweet:  "Woman charged with choking teen for blocking view at Disney fireworks show."

On a related note, here's an item from Instagram just a few days ago, from the account called guerrillafeminism that reads "happy international women's day except the 53% of white women who voted for trump."

Pat Bagley, the cartoonist for the Salt Lake City Tribune (whose work I greatly admire, by the way), has referred to Trump's "idiot followers."

With that background, you can imagine my surprise--but also delight--when I saw this Tweet from Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress, which bills itself as an

independent nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans, through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action. Our aim is not just to change the conversation, but to change the country.

Despite the "nonpartisan" billing, I see it as clearly left leaning (a good thing in my book!).  Tanden's Tweet reads:

The teachers of West Virginia are heroes.  They deserve good pay and a real raise.  I stand with them.

Now, I don't recall any past Tweets by Tanden blasting Trump supporters, though I do recall some highly critical of Trump.  That's a line I've drawn myself--at least in the last year or so (I was a bit less discriminating--a bit more knee jerk--as I reeled in the wake of election of 2016)  I readily take aim at Trump but try to be more thoughtful and circumspect re: Trump supporters.  I'm looking to understand them, trying to listen empathically. (I've got a whole law review article forthcoming about female Trump supporters, delivered as the key note address at the Toledo Law Review symposium in October, 2017; hope to have the text posted soon on my ssrn.com page).

But the bottom line is that some things I saw on Twitter about the West Virginia teachers--many sympathetic comments of the sort Tanden shared--had me wondering if the lefties doing this Tweeting realized that many of the folks they were lauding and advocating for had no doubt voted for Trump.  That is, these newfound labor heroes with their wild-cat strike were one and the same with (many) reviled Trump voters.  Some 68% of West Virginians voted for Trump!  Could I possibly be seeing praise for these women--praise from the left?   These are the same women that many lefties on Twitter have said "get what they deserve" if they lose their healthcare (thanks to Trump's effort to dismantle Obamacare) or face further economic decline (thanks, for example, to the long-term consequences of Trump's tax reform law).

(Btw, I was at an Appalachian Justice symposium at West Virginia University College of Law in Morgantown from Thursday Feb. 22 'til Saturday Feb. 24th, and I got to see the picketing--and hear the honking in support--first-hand, which was pretty cool.  One of my favorite signs, this published in the Washington Post, is below )

Michelle Goldberg, a relatively new columnist at the New York Times who is writing a lot about gender issues, offered up this column under the headline, "The Teachers Revolt in West Virginia."  She called the strike "thrilling," noting that strikes by teachers are unlawful in West Virginia, which became a right-to-work state a few years ago, and where unions do not have collective bargaining rights. Yet, Goldberg writes,

teachers and some other school employees in all of the state’s 55 counties are refusing to return to work until lawmakers give them a 5 percent raise, and commit to addressing their rapidly rising health insurance premiums.

Goldberg further explains that the "obvious impetus" for action is West Virginia's awful pay of teachers, which ranks 48th in the nation (read more analysis here).  She also discusses the critical role that health care/health insurance plays in the labor dispute:

 In the past, solid health care benefits helped make up for low wages, but because West Virginia hasn’t been putting enough money into the state agency that insures public employees, premiums and co-payments have been increasing significantly.  

Ah, there's that health care problem again, by which I mean you should read this and this, among other sources cited and discussed in my forthcoming Toledo Law Review article.

Having pored over many, many mainstream media reports of white working class Trump supporters in places like Appalachia (you guess it! all in that article forthcoming in the Toledo Law Review), I was struck by the women Goldberg identified and interviewed who did not appear to be Trump supporters.  Quite to the contrary, these women are held out as having responded to Trump's election by becoming part of what is popularly known as "the resistance." I was delighted to learn about and hear from these women, but was Goldberg unable to find any Trump supporters among the striking teachers?  I would very much have liked to have heard their attitudes about the strike, also in relation to their support for Trump.  Did they reconcile the two?

Here are excerpts/quotes about the two women Goldberg did feature, Jenny Craig, a special education teacher from Triadelphia (population 811, northern panhandle) and Amanda Howard Garvin, an elementary art teacher in Morgantown:

Craig described the anti-Trump Women’s March, as well as the explosion of local political organizing that followed it, as a “catalyst” for at least some striking teachers. “You have women now taking leadership roles in unionizing, in standing up, in leading initiatives for fairness and equality and justice for everyone,” she said.

Garvin commented:

As a profession, we’re largely made up of women. ... There are a bunch of men sitting in an office right now telling us that we don’t deserve anything better. 

Oh how I LOVE that quote.  In the wake of Trump’s election, Garvin added, women are standing up to say: 

No. We’re equal here.

I sure hope Garvin is right that the sentiment and movement are as widespread as she suggests--and Goldberg implies.  If this is accurate, liberal elites--including feminists--will have to give Craig, Garvin and so many more like them their due.  (Indeed, teacher strikes may be in the works in the equally "red" states of Oklahoma and Kentucky, too).  That will challenge deeply entrenched stereotypes about folks from this region (read more here and here), which will in turn serve all of us quite well.  

You can find more exciting coverage of the West Virginia teachers strike here, here and here.  And don't miss this by WVU Law Professor and education law expert, Joshua Weishart.  

By the way, the strike succeeded, with the teachers getting what they held out for.  

The question that all of this leaves me with is this:  What can the WV teachers strike teach us about how to build and sustain cross-class coalitions, including among whites?  How can these intra-racial coalitions interface with cross-race coalitions for even stronger pacts among progressives?  And what role will gender play in that coalition building?  

Other hopeful news of change in relation to women and the national political landscape is here, here and here.  

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism, Working Class Whites and the Law, and the UC Davis Faculty Blog.   

Can fraternities really be reformed?

In my last blog, Why college fraternities are bad for boys too, I suggested that prohibiting hazing and Greek life is certainly something that all universities should consider doing.  Prohibition is not a new or radical idea. Some American colleges have already taken that step.  Major American news outlets, like Time magazine and the New York Times, still publish reviews calling on all colleges to get rid of fraternities for good. Indeed, there were even attempts by some university presidents to close fraternities as far back as the mid-19th century.  Although frats have managed, by in large, to ride out these storms, serious questions continue to dog them.  This must mean that something, somewhere is still rotten at the heart of the system. So would reform, rather than abolition – which I suggested – really be the more practical answer?

I suspect that Greek Life institutions would probably resist reform as much as abolition. But if reform was their only choice, supporters would, no doubt, still endeavour to retain what they regard as the system’s most worthy features.  No doubt they would point to the sense of “brotherhood” fraternities aim to engender or, as noted in my previous blog, Greek Life’s supposed “Christian” ethos.  They would certainly highlight the amount fraternities donate to charity - presently estimated at $7 million annually.

Yet scratch below the surface and one finds something fundamentally unsavoury in fraternities’ interpretation of these ostensibly laudable values. Remember, college fraternities were originally invented by rich young white men to isolate themselves from their middle-class peers and to gain some autonomy from college regulation. Nowadays the national study body is more diverse than when the system first started. What hasn’t changed, though, is the pride fraternities take in remaining both independent of campus authority and exclusively male. The fact that higher income and white students are still more likely to join fraternities also means that membership remains overwhelmingly white and upper-middle class. If you are poor or a woman you need not apply. Self-evidently, college fraternities’ concept of “brotherhood” and “Christianity” is deeply at odds with that espoused by the namesake of this law school!

Of course, we have fraternities’ charitable giving. Many good causes undoubtedly benefit from this. My question, though, is whether fraternities’ philanthropic work could be just as easily done on a greater scale by other corporate, religious and student organisations that are not exclusionary, sex-segregated clubs built around binge drinking and hazing. I doubt, for example, that the Salvation Army has ever beaten any of their volunteers to death or left them to die of alcohol poisoning with their hands zip-tied after an initiation! 

Equally fraternities charitable giving must also be viewed in the context of their overall wealth and how they utilize it.  It is estimated that fraternities and sororities own over $3 billion in real estate and take in $150 million of tax-free revenue each year.  Much of this fortune is used, for instance, to help members gain positions of authority on campuses. This, in turn, aids them in continuously securing scholarships and awards. Post-college, frat alumni maintain close ties to the frat.  Many provide donations back to their organisation and help newly graduated “brothers” find employment – thus perpetuating a cycle of social exclusion through the passing of assistance from one wealthy alumni generation to the next. 

Frats further look after themselves through sophisticated trade organisations and a political action committee, FratPAC, which, in 2013, succeeded in killing a piece of desperately needed (but bad-for-business) anti-hazing legislation in Congress.  That alone would make anyone wonder why an institution - that purports to be charitable - would deploy its resources in such a self-serving way rather than on, say, more meritorious pursuits such as combating homelessness, hunger, poverty or disease? 

In considering the feasibility of reform we should also never forget that the frat organisation responsible for the death of Tim Piazza (see my previous blog) was supposed to be a “reformed” fraternity.  In fact, it was considered a “model” one “reflect[ing] a national perspective on best practices”.  It had strict behavioural guidelines, a no-alcohol policy, live-in adult supervision and video surveillance.  Despite the university’s zero-tolerance policy regarding hazing and Pennsylvania state’s outlawing of such behaviour, the investigation found that fraternity members engaged in sexually humiliating practices and regularly threw parties fuelled with over $1,200 worth of alcohol. This stubborn disregard for campus or state regulation displayed by Beta Theta Pi takes us back to one of frats’ founding traditions and essential purposes - to offer privileged young men a space where they can be free from any form of external regulation or civilised code of conduct.  All Greek life activities are ultimately directed towards that goal.

It seems to me, therefore, that any sensible reform of Greek life institutions would need to be so root and branch that it would actually destroy the essence of what it means to be a fraternity.  This leaves only two realistic choices.  Either fraternities and sororities close voluntarily, or colleges (or even state authorities) abolish them.

I appreciate that many colleges may be reluctant to move in that direction given, for example, that 75% of donations to private universities come from fraternity alumni. But then again, isn’t decency more important than money? Isn’t protecting women from sexual violence more important than money? Isn’t the life of Tim Piazza more important than money? Indeed, isn’t all that what “brotherhood” is truly supposed to mean? 

When the "good guys" are the harassers

Over the past few months, the media has exploded with claims of sexual harassment made by victims against men in positions of power. The allegations range in severity, from molestation and sexual assault of minors to unwanted sexual advances and "butt-grabbing." Regardless of the details, many of these allegations had common themes running throughout: men abusing their professional, social, and personal power; and victims staying quiet, fearing retaliation, harm to their careers, public shaming, and damage to their reputations.

The tidal wave of sexual assault allegations has not been relegated to one party or industry. The accused come from a variety of careers and political affiliations. As someone who identifies as more politically liberal, this has forced me to contend with my own discomfort as I discovered that many public figures I trusted and respected had acted so terribly. It's easy, even validating, to believe and accept that men like Donald Trump (serial misogynist) and Roy Moore (serial crazy person) have committed acts of sexual assault and sexual harassment. It stings to hear such accusations leveled against Al Franken and John Conyers, Democratic stalwarts and proponents of causes and ideals I identify with and care about. I will admit that even the accusations against Louis C.K. hurt a bit. I was subscribed to his email list and watched all his comedy specials multiple times... but lord knows I'm certainly not laughing now.

I am not the only one dealing with these mixed feelings. In conversations with friends and family, I have heard others express disbelief and even make attempts to justify and mitigate the conduct of these men and others.  These pained responses seem to reflect the cognitive dissonance we are all experiencing... how can a "good guy" have done this?

This cognitive dissonance is playing out in the media as well, as prominent women publicly (and I would argue, clumsily) defend these men. For example, on Meet the Press last week, House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi spoke in support of John Conyers. In doing so, she inadvertently checked boxes for multiple tactics sexual harassers use to undermine their victims and the accusations against them. Pelosi attempted to bolster Conyers' credibility at the victim's expense, portrayed Conyers as the true victim, minimized the severity of Conyers' conduct, and highlighted Conyers' otherwise respectable history of supporting women.

The women of SNL made a similar effort to defend Al Franken. Thirty-six women who worked with Franken at SNL while he was on the show issued a public statement, lightly condemning Franken's behavior as "stupid and foolish" but nonetheless going on to say that none of them had ever experienced sexual harassment from Franken and that Franken "treated each of [them] with the utmost respect and regard." As The Stranger's Anna Kaplan so aptly put it, "All 36 women who were involved with producing the show anywhere from the top down signed the letter to show solidarity and support for him because of how they personally interacted with him. However, maybe one of the most glaring realities that has come out of the past six weeks is that people you think you know, maybe aren’t exactly who you thought they were."

If the #metoo campaign showed us anything, it is that sexual harassment is a pervasive aspect of American culture (regardless of race, class, age, or political affiliation) that has touched a tremendous number of lives. It's only realistic to anticipate that even people we like and love (not just public figures but people we actually know) may have engaged in reprehensible conduct. 

So how should one respond when someone you like and respect is accused of sexual harassment? What is the appropriate way to balance your care for the accused with your concern for the victims? An article recently published on Bustle.com outlined seven productive and empowering steps people can take:

1. Listen to the accuser

2. Laud the survivor for coming forward

3. Don't center your response on your relationship with the harasser

4. Talk to the harasser

5. Offer the harasser actionable advice to improve their conduct

6. Critically evaluate your relationship with the harasser

7. Focus on receiving information rather than merely reacting to information

I strongly identified with this strategy. In following these steps, one can show compassion to the victims of sexual harassment while also recognizing that it's possible (even helpful) to maintain a relationship with the accused. In fact, by standing in solidarity with accusers, and offering honest and critical feedback and advice to the harassers (either in person or in the public sphere), individuals have a valuable opportunity to contribute to ending a culture that condones and encourages such behavior.

Not all public responses to harassment claims have been tone-deaf and inept. One example of a great response came from Sarah Silverman, a comedian and close friend of Louis C.K. In her statement, which ran before an episode of her show on Hulu, she followed some of the steps outlined above. She recognized that it hurt to hear about the things Louis C.K. had done, but also unequivocally stood with his accusers:

 “He wielded his power with women in f—ed up ways, sometimes to the point where they left comedy entirely. I could couch this with heartwarming stories of our friendship and what a great dad he is, but that’s totally irrelevant, isn’t it? Yes, it is. It’s a real mindf*ck, because I love Louis. But Louis did these things. Both of those statements are true. So I just keep asking myself, ‘Can you love someone who did bad things? Can you still love them?’ I can mull that over later certainly, because the only people that matter right now are the victims. They are victims and they are victims because of something he did. So I hope it’s OK that I am, at once, very angry for the women he wronged and the culture that enabled it, and also sad, because he’s my friend. But I believe with all my heart that this moment in time is essential. It’s vital that people are held accountable for their actions, no matter who they are. We need to be better. We will be better. I can’t f—ing wait to be better.”

Suffice it to say, I can't wait either.

The "Motherhood Penalty"

Because of the normative conceptions of what a “normal” family looks like and what a “normal” mother is (e.g. SNAF-encoded households), women are faced with a two-fold set of obstacles that inhibit them from reducing the wage disparity between men and women. The first obstacle is the unequal distribution of labor within the private sphere, which burdens mothers with a disproportionate amount of household chores (the “second shift”). The second obstacle is the culturally perceived tension between what it means to be an “ideal worker” and what it means to be an “ideal mother” (the “motherhood penalty”).

As stated by Dorothy Edith Smith in The Standard North American Family: SNAF as an Ideological Code, SNAF is a normative conception of the family as a legally married couple sharing a household. Within this household there are distinctive roles for both the adult male and adult female. The male participates in paid employment to fulfill his role as the primary breadwinner of the family, whereas the female may or may not participate in paid labor.

Under the ideological code of SNAF, it is not necessary for the female to make income, because her primary responsibility is to take care of the husband, child, and household. As such, her potential income is merely viewed as supplementary.

As a result, women who take work outside their household duties are not viewed as standard, and are considered to be deviating from the normal structure of the nuclear family. Because of the primary identification of women as mothers and being primarily concerned with the rearing of children, the burden of caring for the child is placed entirely upon the mother.

Additionally, a mothers formal identification with caretaker often times lead into their decision to not pursue professional careers, which directly contributes to the unequal pay between men and women. The most frustrating aspect of this dilemma is that women feel the need to choose between either marriage or work, whereas men operate under the assumption that they can have both. Namely, because they do not have to be burdened with the household affairs

Shelley J. Correll in Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty, argues that in addition to workplace discrimination based on sex, mothers face an additional penalty because of their status characteristic as mothers, called the “motherhood penalty”. This occurs because the salient feature of “motherhood” is a devalued status characteristic in the eyes of prospective employers, due to the perceived tension between the normative conceptions of “ideal mother” and “ideal worker”. What it means to be an “ideal worker” is the ability to devote endless amounts of hours to one's work, whereas what it means to be an “ideal mother” is to devote oneself entirely to her family and children.

Accordingly, in the eyes of employers, mothers are not ideal candidates for employment and are discriminated against for their status as a mother. When evaluating a candidate, Correll argues that employers judge “performance capacity” upon two criteria: competence (ability) and effort (commitment). Mothers are viewed as lacking in both criteria due to the aforementioned conceptions of mothers.

Structuring her experiment around these ideas, Correll’s lab experiment showed that when all other status characteristics were held constant, (e.g. race, class, gender) whereas “motherhood” was made salient, the results confirmed the hypothesis of the motherhood penalty. Mothers as opposed to non-mothers were hired at a lower rate, were offered lower starting salaries, and were also less likely to be considered for promotion. Also, in support of the SNAF-encoded nuclear family, fathers were offered a higher initial salary as opposed to non-fathers, probably because of the belief that fathers should be the primary bread winners and support the family financially.

Thus, we can see how the cultural beliefs of the normal family serves as an obstacle in the fight against unequal wage distribution between men and women. Primarily by i) restricting women from participating in the workplace because of being overburdened with work in the household and ii) facing real and material consequences for being labeled as mothers.

The 'feminist' trend AW17

Whether you’ve a lifetime subscription to Vogue, or dress in a burlap sack and couldn’t really care less about fashion, New York Fashion Week post-Trump was of particular import. Almost overnight, the makers and wearers of haute couture, who rarely concern themselves with the struggles of mere mortals, adopted a political agenda. From Tommy Hilfiger to Calvin Klein, apparel appeared to become the new vehicle for social change. Designers printed bold statements on t-shirts, blouses, sweaters, even on underwear, denouncing some of Trump’s most divisive executive orders, from the immigration ban, to the 'wall', to cuts to Planned Parenthood funding.

The plight of women, however, seemed to be a hot topic for many designers to capitalize on. The Nepalese-American designer Prabal Gurung wrapped up his AW17 collection with a display of printed t-shirts proclaiming ‘Nevertheless, she persisted’, ‘Girls just want to have fundamental rights’ and took his final bow sporting a t-shirt splashed with ‘This is what a feminist looks like’. The American designer Adam Lippes unfurled signs reading ‘Adam Lippes stands with Planned Parenthood’ and ‘Girl Power’ outside of his show. I had a feeling Maria Grazia Chiruri’s ‘We should all be feminists’ début as the first female artistic director for Dior would be the overture to this feminist ‘trend’ of 2017. Chiruri drew inspiration for this simplistic design in her Spring 2017 collection from the influential feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.

With a price tag of $710 for a printed cotton t-shirt, can we really all afford to be feminists? While I understand and appreciate the awareness many of these designers are attempting to create around feminism in a post-Trump landscape, it’s the disturbing anti-feminist trickle-down effect of many of these designs that I see as problematic.

While many luxury designers may escape scrutiny of their production methods since their garments are costly, created by hand and tend not to be produced in bulk, it’s the much-loved and familiar high-street brands harbouring more ominous secrets. Type in ‘slogan tee’ or ‘printed tee’ into the website search bars of H&M, Forever 21, Topshop, Urban Outfitters, Nike, Primark and many, many more fast fashion brands. One thing becomes apparent. The trend for feminist apparel is no longer confined to the catwalks of New York Fashion Week. ‘Feminism is for everyone’, ‘Revolution♀’, ‘Girls supporting girls’, ‘Fight like a girl’, ‘Equality’ and ‘Girl power’ were all popular buys. Yet somehow I doubt that by buying an overpriced ‘Power to the girls’ t-shirt (that you can frankly make yourself), will put an end to the sexism that is endured in this world. If anything, you may be contributing to the problem.

The 2015 Netflix documentary ‘The True Cost’ is an exposé of the many environmental and social injustices that are borne out of the $3 trillion fashion industry. When we look at the price tag on a t-shirt or a sweater, we’re often blind to the hidden cost behind the perceived bargain we think we’re getting. We often don’t see the many, many hands that have touched these garments. The hands that are being forced to work in inhumane factory conditions because they have no better employment alternative, with little to no workers’ rights, being paid well below a living wage, often forced to forfeit their families, health and sometimes even their lives as we saw in the case of the Rana Plaza garment factory collapse in Bangladesh. And all for what? So we can buy cheap clothes to satiate some innate desire, only to discard of them when the next trend comes rolling in?

America only makes about 3% of its own clothes, meaning garment production is frequently outsourced to impoverished countries so desperate for the work supplied by these goliath corporations that their governments routinely hold down workers’ wages to prevent companies finding a cheaper alternative and relocating. While it’s clear that the garment industry, the most labour dependent industry in the world, doesn’t solely exploit women, but men and children too, one cannot deny that women in these impoverished countries are hit the hardest by these working conditions, with women making up over 85% of the workforce.

To cite an excerpt from H&M’s ‘sustainability’ tab on their website;

“H&M group helps to create jobs, consequently lifting people out of poverty, and contributing to economic growth and improved standards of living… About two-thirds of these jobs are undertaken by women. For many women, this is their first job that provides an income, their first work outside the home and therefore a first step to independence.”

Sounds very wholesome, doesn’t it? The reality is large corporations such as H&M or any of the brands listed above, can afford to make these grand, vague statements because they don’t directly employ the workers that end up being exploited. They can keep themselves at arms length from the 'dirty' business of factory collapses, structural defects, underpaid workers and increasingly negative health effects of sweltering, overcrowded factory floors, as their products are sourced from 'independent suppliers'. All that this shift of blame results in is avoiding any and all responsibility while at the same time reaping colossal financial benefits from cheap labor. Many of these large corporations also blocked the Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act, which tried to “prohibit the import, export, and sale of goods made with sweatshop labor”, citing that it would be an impediment to free trade. The message is clear, profits before people.

With companies refusing to implement any solid legislative protection for workers, or prohibition of goods produced by sweatshop labor, all that is in place are voluntary ‘codes of conduct’ which companies can elect to undertake, and even if they don’t, or fail to see them through, they’ll face little to no punitive consequences.

I can’t help but think about the women sitting in a garment factory in Bangladesh or Cambodia, earning less than $3 a day and stitching the words ‘Girl power’ or ‘Equality’ onto t-shirts without finding the situation to be quite perverse. One poignant, yet resonating line from 'The True Cost', spoken by a female Bangladeshi factory worker lingered with me; "I don't want anyone wearing anything that is produced by our blood". We may think we’re empowering one another by wearing t-shirts with feminist slogans on them, however if they originate from a patriarchal and capitalist system in which thousands of women are forced to work in inhumane conditions for a pittance, then the irony is overwhelming.