"She Wore What?" Dress Codes and the Male Critique of Women's Presentation of their Bodies

Last month, I attended a mock trial competition in Arizona. A few weeks before we left, my male coach told our all-girl team “Just be sure to wear skirts, not pant suits. I mean, I know it’s outdated but there are some old fogeys in Arizona!” And he’s right – there are old fogeys in Arizona, and everywhere else. But just how far do we have to go to accommodate them? As attorneys, is it our responsibility to our clients to dress in a certain manner in order to be more convincing to old fogeys? (For the record, I wore my pantsuit in Arizona).

By now, we’ve probably all heard of Tennessee Judge Royce Taylor who developed a dress code for female attorneys in his courtroom in 2013.  The memo from the local bar association said the problem of appropriate female attire had arisen because “women attorneyswere not being held to the same standard as the men.” Females were expected to wear jackets “with sleeves below the elbow” or business attire. Sleeveless shirts and mini skirts were specifically prohibited; in fact, the judge held a few femaleattorneys in contempt of court for wearing inappropriate outfits.

Does focusing on appearance help the legal community maintain a certain level of professionalism, or does it simply reinforce social narratives about how women should present their bodies to the general public? Does tying the way that women dress to professionalism reinforce narratives about women’s sexuality, and perhaps specifically their ability to act outside of the sexuality that the male gaze persists in seeing, and policing?

I may be extreme, but the message I’m hearing is this: If a woman wants to work in a professional space, she needs to restrain her sexuality to a sufficient extent that men are satisfied. Maybe that means jackets that cover the elbow; maybe that means closed toed shoes; maybe that means no mini skirts. Men and responsible women need to step in and tell these ladies how to clothe themselves adequately. School dress codes have also consistently treated “appropriate” dress in very gendered ways. Find an interesting perspectives here, and here. 

Obviously, I am not advocating for provocative or sloppy dress in court, per se. I’m proud to be entering a very professional career, in a community with high expectations for practitioners. But I hope that over the course of my career, I will be perceived as an intelligent, effective advocate regardless of what I choose to wear on my body. I realize that I will be perceived by others in part based on what I choose to wear; I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want more control over those perceptions by deciding for myself what to wear and what message to send. Instead of being told what not to wear, I would appreciate making the choice for myself and allowing those on the bench or in the courtroom to decide how they feel about my advocacy for themselves. 

  

Word Reclamation Part II: Are Any Words Okay to Reclaim?

A few months ago I self-identified as queer in front of my family. My aunt and grandma immediately questioned my use of the word. “Isn’t that offensive?” “Can we say queer?” “Does everyone use this term?” “Why would you want to call yourself that?”

I couldn’t answer their questions in any sort of articulate way, but I felt strongly that “queer” is and was a good term.

When I started writing this blog I was 100% certain that “queer” was the all-encompassing term that defied my resistance to word reclamation. I am now less sure. However, I think I will continue to use the word because I believe it allows for the inclusion of all genders and sexualities.

Queer is different from other, more etymologically offensive words. The dictionary definition is, "differing in some odd way from what is usual or normal." In our normative culture, some might contend that this definition is in and of itself, offensive. But maybe there is something empowering about using identifying words to embrace our differences. Perhaps this is why queer has had the rare opportunity to become reclaimed. People who identify as queer are embracing their “differentness.”

It’s a term that both expresses that the identifying individual is different, while at the same time, is inclusive within the queer community. Queer is inclusive. It recognizes all genders and sexualities. However, despite its inclusivity, some commentators have argued that “queer,” is a privileged term used mostly by white, educated, upper middle class folks. I don’t yet know if I agree with this. And if it is a term limited to those with privilege, I don't know how this impacts the discussion over word reclamation.To me, it seems like the power of queer as an insult has dissipated as the usage of the word has become more widespread.

I’m having trouble identifying any other words that have had similar renaissances. Some have argued that “slut” has been reclaimed, at least partially, through recent sex-positive movements like SlutWalk movement. In 2011, a Toronto police officer commented that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” In response, a group of activists protested at the first ever “SlutWalk.” Since then, SlutWalks have occurred across the world drawing thousands of women marching in solidarity to sex-positivize messages. SlutWalks attempt to “reclaim the word ‘slut,’” and “to redefine what it means to be called one.”

This post has also challenged me to think about whether a word can be partially reclaimed. Words like “slut,” “bitch,” “fag,” and “dyke” are still used to perpetuate oppression. Can this oppressive usage be disconnected from a self-liberating usage? I would argue that they can’t. That using them in a positive way doesn’t strip them of their oppressive power.


There is a discernable difference between the literal definitions of queer versus the definitions of the many of the other insulting terms people have attempted to reclaim. No matter how hard individuals and communities attempt reclaim “bitch,” the underlying meaning remains derogatory. Whereas queer, the meaning itself of being different from what is normal, could potentially be embraced.

Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center of Transgender Equality, has voiced opposition to word reclamation in any capacity. “Words like ‘tranny,’ ‘faggot,’ ‘dyke,’ ‘illegal,’ ‘retard,’ and ‘lame’ are often used to stereotype and marginalize people,” she explained. “Some people who are the targets feel that they are hateful, cruel words. That's enough for me [not to use them].” I think I agree with Mara Keisling. Words that are still used to stereotype, marginalize and disparage should be avoided at all costs.

But maybe queer is different. Queer has evolved to embrace its very definition, and for me, that might be enough to use it.

Immigration as a feminist issue

Working in the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic forced me to confront issues too easily ignored—too easily ignored by the United States, by mainstream feminism, and by me. 

Before the Immigration Law Clinic, I had no idea how many immigrants the U.S. government detains, or more accurately put, imprisons.  For example, did you know that Congress mandates that the Department of Homeland Security maintains at least 34,000 beds in immigration detention centers across the country?  Or that 9 out of the 10 largest immigration detention centers are operated by private, for-profit companies?  Or that the largest of these private, for-profit detention centers is intended to detain only women and children?

The more I learn, the more I’m disgusted. But the more I’m also aware of feminism's and immigration's intersectionality—an intersection that if recognized gives me hope for positive change and better immigration policies.

As a woman and feminist, it’s sometimes difficult understanding my obligation to women in other countries.  Given concerns about cultural relativism, “helping” women on an international scale sometimes enters into an uncomfortable gray area, harkening back to a colonial past.  But when our national policies are directly responsible for the danger faced by women and their communities around the globe, feminists have a duty to recognize this reality and take action.

The American government’s crackdown on Central American migration is one such example.  In 2014, there was a surge in the number of women and unaccompanied children traveling from the Northern Triangle (Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala) to seek asylum in the United States. Women in the Northern Triangle face some of the highest rates of gendered violence—specifically gender-motivated killings—in the world.  In the presence of such violence, tens of thousands of migrants fled to the United States, seeking protection within its borders.

The United States responded not with open arms, but with policies meant to deter further migration. The Department of Homeland Security began detaining more asylum seekers with the specific purpose of deterring their migration.  Previously, women and children who sought asylum would be quickly released on bond.  But after the influx, migrants were instead detained—often by private, for-profit corporations.  (This practice of denying bond was illegal and later enjoined to enforce a two decades-old settlement.)

Under pressure from, and with the support of, the American government the Mexican government also stepped up its own border enforcement, particularly at its southern border.  As reported by NPR, this crackdown has created incredibly dangerous conditions for migrants.  For example, migrants previously relied on a train system called La Bestia, a transportation network providing relatively inexpensive and quick transportation to the U.S. border.  After the crackdown, migrants were banned from using these trains.  As a result, migrants are increasingly forced to rely on smugglers, travel by foot, and to take longer and more perilous routes to the United States.  Migrants now face a greater risk of robbery, rape, abduction, and even death. Female migrants speak of being forced to sleep with smugglers in exchange for protection and assistance in border crossings.  The NYTimes also reports that migrants have experienced torture, forced prostitution, organ harvesting, and other unimaginably horrendous forms of exploitation—all a direct consequence of American immigration policies.

Recognizing the intersection of feminism and immigration might help address these ineffective and inhumane policies—policies that often harm women in disproportionate ways.  Part of our feminist duty is to recognize the impact of immigration policies as sources of harm and oppression.  Only with this recognition will we seek meaningful solutions.

Surprise, Surprise: The Male Justices of the Supreme Court Don't Understand Women's Healthcare

Many writers have criticized the Supreme Court and its justices for being out of touch with the American public. Many individuals have written articles on the topic which discuss the bench's lack of socio-economic diversity, the lack of diversity of experience, the lack of religious diversity and the lack of educational diversity. All of these factors lead to nine justices who often appear to be unable to grasp the day-to-day lives of American citizens (especially when those individuals are poor, women, or members of a minority). This separation between the Ivy League educated justices (specifically the male justices) and the American citizenry has been especially visible in the past several weeks in the oral arguments for Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt and Zubik v. Burwell.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt is a challenge to Texas' HB2 law which supposedly is designed to "protect women" (these quotation marks do not indicate an actual quote but are instead used to suggest the fallaciousness of the government's reasoning). What this bill actually does is close approximately 75 percent of Texas abortion clinics.

Zubik v. Burwell challenges the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate. While many thought that this matter was (wrongly) decided in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Zubik involves religious nonprofits challenges to the current accommodations made by the Obama administration. These accommodations allow religious objectors to opt out of providing coverage for contraceptives in their health care plans by either filling out a form or sending in a letter expressing their religious objections. The challengers claim that even filling out these forms infringes on their religious beliefs.

Both of these cases obviously have great implications for women, and specifically women's health. It is this concept that the male justices often cannot seem to quite grasp.

In Whole Woman's Health, Justice Kennedy questioned the challengers about whether there was any actual evidence that the state law actually imposed true burdens on women. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito questioned whether there was evidence to show that the closure of clinics was actually related to HB2. So, despite the fact that 75 percent of clinics have closed since the law took effect, apparently several justices are unsure about this correlation, or more specifically, causation. Additionally, at least Justice Kennedy seems to be unable to understand how these laws burden not only the abortion providers but the women of Texas as well (despite how obvious this likely seems to most of us).

In Zubik v. Burwell the male (and conservative) members of the Supreme Court do not understand how the health insurance market actually functions. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito appear to suggest that forcing women to find another way to get their contraceptives covered is not actually that big of a deal because they can access birth control through federal insurance exchanges. "They're on the exchanges, right?" Roberts said. Thankfully, Justice Sotomayor stepped in an explained that no, "[t]hey're not on the exchanges...That's a falsehood." However, even after this explanation that no, there is no such thing as a contraceptive-only policy, Kennedy and Roberts were still unable (or unwilling) to grasp how exchanges work and how they would affect the ability of women to gain access to birth control. Indeed, Kennedy expressed the belief that it is "so easy" and "so free" for women to sign up for a birth control only plan.

So, not only do many of the Justices not understand insurance policy markets, they also are unable (or unwilling) to understand the burden this places on women who are trying to access free and affordable birth control (and yet requiring an organization to simply fill out a form is somehow unworkable and inexcusable difficult). The male justices inability to grasp simple facts about insurance and women's health illustrates a larger issue that often appears not only in the judicial branch, but also the legislative and executive branches. When our country's judges and government officials are largely wealthy, white males, they do not have the ability to experience how many of the laws and rulings they enact affect real people's day to day lives. While the Supreme Court is filled with brilliant legal scholars who are able to understand and shape our most complex laws, I also wish that they were able to grasp the more simple and personal results of such rulings.

Word Reclamation and Appropriation Part I: The Genesis of the Word “Bitch” and Why I Stopped Using It

The word “bitch” has become so engrained in our culture speaking out against it might seem radical.

In high school I spent the majority of my weekends working at a dog-boarding kennel. Though my primary duties were to feed, clean and occasionally pet our furry clients, I also helped out with the kennel’s breeding facility. The kennel was owned an operated by a couple that in their spare time bred and showed standard poodles. It was also the first time I heard the word “bitch” used regularly to solely describe dogs. I can’t put my finger on exactly what was unsettling about switching my vernacular from the kennel to high school. The differences in the use of the term on Sundays versus Mondays started to become conscious.

Since the 15th century, the word bitch has evolved from its purest form — a term for “lady dogs” — to a commonly used slang for women. Until the 1920s “bitch” was a rarely used demoralizing term – but when it was used, it was used to degrade women to the level of dogs. However, during the time of women’s suffrage, the use of the word more than doubled in newspapers and literature. As women asserted power, they were more likely to be hurled a sexist epithet. It wasn’t long before “bitch” became an “all-purpose insult for annoying women.”

During the second wave of feminism, activists attempted to “reclaim” the word. Word reclamation occurs when the subject of a derogatory slur reappropriates the word for his or her own use. Advocates of word reclamation argue that when the “slur or insult is used by the people whom it had originally intended to demean, then the word loses all of its malicious meaning.”

In 1974, Jo Freeman wrote The Bitch Manifesto, and declared that “We must be strong, we must be militant, we must be dangerous. We must realize that Bitch is Beautiful and that we have nothing to lose.”

Since then, women have reclaimed “bitch” by both declaring themselves “bitches” and calling other women “bitches” as a term of endearment. Pop culture propagates this message. In 2007, Britney Spears released “Gimme More” and announced, “it’s Britney Bitch” to the word. The song is said to have “revolutionized the B-word” into a term of empowerment.

I feel lucky to be living in a time when women can feel empowered enough to attempt to take back their sex-specific insults. However, men don’t have an analogous term. There is no word for a man asserting his power. Men don’t have to reappropriate a slur to wipe the shame of being a man away.

Yes. It is great for women to be strong. To be confident. To say what they think. To be opinionated. But to do all of these things, do we need to denigrate ourselves to dogs?

No matter the work done to reclaim the word, sexism is still a seemingly insurmountable problem. Not everyone uses the reclaimed definition of “bitch.” We cannot erase the history of the word when it still has so much existing negative usage. Maybe if women actually reclaimed the word, and the power of the insult was gone, I would feel differently. I don’t believe word reclamation is impossible (in a later post I’ll talk about “queer” and difference between reclaiming “queer” and “faggot”).

However, even if the power of insult were gone, I still don’t know if the dog-in-heat genesis of the term would pass muster as a term of empowerment. Just a few days ago Donald Trump released an ad depicting Hillary Clinton barking like a dog. When women in power are degraded to “bitches” in such an obvious and disgusting way, is it even possible to empower ourselves to be “bitches”?

There’s a strong correlation between women asserting power and women being called “bitches” with a derogatory intent. While some might think reclaiming this word lets us take back the power, I think we should closely examine whether we want to be using this word in any context. Shouldn’t we instead encourage women in power? I think this is done by calling women strong, confident, committed, focused, and inspirational - the same words we use to describe men with equal power.

Universities are failing to adequately protect against sexual harassment

Institutions of higher education are expected to provide safe, appropriate learning and working environments. This should include freedom from sexual assault and harassment. Unfortunately, these phenomena continue to be a problem on many campuses across the United States. According to a survey by the American Association of University Women (AAUW), 62 percent of female students reported having been victims of sexual harassment.  Another recent survey involving college students found 23 percent of female students have been sexually assaulted.   

What is more problematic is the manner in which universities have recently been responding to sexual harassment claims. On March 9^th, UC Berkeley school officials reported that the Dean of UC Berkeley’s School of Law, Sujit Chaudhry, had been placed on immediate leave following the filing of a lawsuit by Chaudhry’s former executive assistant claiming sexual harassment. That Friday, in the midst of public outcry, Chaudhry resigned from his position.  But all of these consequences against the Dean only occurred because his misconduct became public after the lawsuit was filed. Before the news broke, the Dean’s punishment was a 10 percent reduction of his six-figure salary for a year, that he seek counseling, and apologize to his ex-assistant.

But what happened with the former employee of the Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law is not an isolated incident for the UC school and pales in comparison to how the school has previously handled such cases. Just last year the school dealt with another sexual harassment claim against their world-renowned astronomy professor, Geoffrey Marcy. The same office that handled the claims against Chaudhry also found Marcy had engaged in inappropriate behavior with students, including groping, kissing, or massaging them. In July 2015, campus officials’ response to Marcy was a mere warning that he could be fired if he harassed anyone again. It was a Buzzfeed article in October 2015 that publicly revealed his misconduct and the university’s poor response.  Ultimately, Marcy resigned “under the pressure from his Berkeley colleagues.

Unfortunately, the failure to properly respond to sexual harassment is not only limited to UC Berkeley. Another UC school, UCLA, is also dealing with sexual harassment issues. Similar to Cal,  UCLA’s faculty is currently pressuring the school to fire a history professor found by the administration to have engaged in sexual misconduct towards two female graduate students. Before UCLA informed the faculty about the professor’s transgressions, the professor’s punishment included a $3,000 fine and a 10-week suspension without pay. 

These three sexual harassment cases demonstrate that it takes BOTH public revelation of a faculty member’s sexual misconduct towards its students or staff AND faculty protests over the misbehavior in order for these institutions to take any meaningful action to address incidents of sexual harassment. This is horrible. This sends the message to students and university employees alike that they cannot count on their academic institutions to protect their safety and their right to be free from sex discrimination when the alleged perpetrator is a high level administrator. 

Unfortunately, the consequence of such messages to women in academic institutions is clear.  In an Op Ed for The Daily Californian, UC Berkeley professor Ellen Simm perfectly states what happens when universities fail to properly address sexual harassment: victims will not report the problem. “Not one student who complained to [her] about an incident of sexual harassment has ever been willing to file a formal complaint.” And when there are no complaints, perpetrators of sexual harassment are likely to continue to engage in such conduct in the future with total impunity.  Already sexual harassment and sexual assault incidents have a tendency to go unreported. In fact, the Department of Justice found sexual assault to be the most unreported crime on college campuses.   

So how can universities prevent the sexual harassment and sexual assault of women on their campuses when recent events have shown that they refuse to or cannot properly handle sexual harassment complaints? 

Fortunately for the victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides them with another opportunity for justice when an academic institution fails to properly protect is students. Victims can directly file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Title IX bans sex discrimination in any educational institution that receives federal funds. However, it can take a long time for victims to get to this point and can likely be a painful process. It shouldn't have to be this way.  Not in 2016.