FUCK THE PATRIARCHY (trigger warning)

HaileyDancingbear

SEXUAL HARASSMENT TRIGGER WARNING

In Oregon a judge has ruled that a 61 year old man who took photos up a 13 year old girl's skirt has done nothing illegal and will face no consequences whatsoever.  This girl was at Target with her mother when this happened.  

Here is the article:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/upskirting-legal-in-oregon#.xmYQBLbwE

I AM RAGING.  Just another fucking reminder that as long as you are female and in public, shitty fucking male entitlement dictates that you are simply there for no reason other than the male gaze and are just public fucking property to harass as they please.  As if I needed another reminder that any time I leave my home, I am not safe.  As if I needed another reminder that my gender puts a fucking target on my back.  AS IF I WASN'T ALREADY SICK TO FUCKING DEATH OF THIS GARBAGE MALE ENTITLEMENT AND BLATANT MISOGYNY BEING SUPPORTED BY OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LEGAL SYSTEM.  I am so fucking ashamed and disgusted to call myself an American.  I am so fucking sick of how legitimately afraid I am to be alone in public, and fucking sick of shopping for self-defense things I can keep on hand, youtubing self-defense moves, because I know that my right to walk safely from point a to point b without being harassed and assaulted is not going to be enforced.  

What's even worse is that this sends a message that this form of sexual harassment is legal and acceptable.  Knotties, keep an eye out for the inevitable wave of entitled fucking shitheads that will see this and take it as a free pass to do the same. Keep a fucking eagle eye on the other women around you. If you see someone trying to do this to them speak the fuck up.  Scream in their fucking face, break their fucking phone, don't stand by and let this happen to others.  Don't let these assholes get away with it, apparently our legal system won't enforce our right to be in public without being harassed, so we have to fucking enforce it ourselves. I swear to fucking god I am so fucking done with this fucking bullshit.  

firebabe6519

This is such bullshit! Wtf? Comparing taking advantage of an underage barely teen girl to Marilyn Monroe's flashing her underwear pics is not even remotely in the same category...

HaileyDancingbear

firebabe6519 said:

This is such bullshit! Wtf? Comparing taking advantage of an underage barely teen girl to Marilyn Monroe's flashing her underwear pics is not even remotely in the same category…

Apparently it is because the content of the photo being a girl in her underwear is WAY more important than wether or not she consented to have that photo taken.  Did I mention fuck the patriarchy?

esstee33

This is absolutely fucking insane. SHE'S THIRTEEN FUCKING YEARS OLD. 

natswild

It is really a sick fucking ruling!  I'm wondering if the judge isn't a closet creeper as well.  It definitely brings to mind a ruling in Canada a couple decades ago where a 30 year old man raped a 3 year old girl, and the judge ruled that it wasn't his fault, this THREE YEAR OLD GIRL provoked it, and it was her fault she'd been raped!  Thankfully the judge lost his job, but it's so common to see this obnoxious bullshit!

doeydo

What the actual fuck?
ETA that was re the dickface pedo who took the picture of the girl and what the courts decided to do (or not do, rather).

JCbride2015

FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCKKKKKKKK.  

crackktheskyy

Disgusting.

climbingsingle

What the fuck?! And she's a child!

kaitlynmichelle

Fucking disgusting. She's 13!

lyndausvi

What I take from this is laws haven't caught up to technology.   A lot of states have passed up skirting laws when they realized they didn't exist in their own state.     

When this country was started cameras didn't even exist.   When they were invented they were these huge ass cameras that you couldn't be sneaky like that.  Now here we are with technology that can do disgusting creepy things like this but the laws are not there to make it illegal.

While disgusting and unmoral, the judge might be right.   But that doesn't mean a law can't be passed to make it illegal.     

Drunk driving laws were all but non-esistent when  was younger.   Now most of you don't know any different because someone said "WTF?" and got the laws to change.

vulpiepop

WHAT THE FUCK?!

rcher912

My rage was triggered at the patriarchy earlier this week when the Supreme Court refused to hear a case where a woman was fired for needing to breastfeed (needing privacy to pump).

The lower court had ruled against her because...

wait for it.....

It's not sexist to fire her because men can sometimes lactate, too, (and ostensibly, they can handle it much better than a hysterical woman can).

lyndausvi

rcher912 said:

My rage was triggered at the patriarchy earlier this week when the Supreme Court refused to hear a case where a woman was fired for needing to breastfeed (needing privacy to pump).

The lower court had ruled against her because...

wait for it.....

It's not sexist to fire her because men can sometimes lactate, too, (and ostensibly, they can handle it much better than a hysterical woman can).

I read that the other day. That is really fucked up.    I thought there were laws in place to protect women who breastfeed?  Having to give them a private non-bathoom place?   I guess not.

HaileyDancingbear

lyndausvi said:

What I take from this is laws haven't caught up to technology.   A lot of states have passed up skirting laws when they realized they didn't exist in their own state.     

When this country was started cameras didn't even exist.   When they were invented they were these huge ass cameras that you couldn't be sneaky like that.  Now here we are with technology that can do disgusting creepy things like this but the laws are not there to make it illegal.

While disgusting and unmoral, the judge might be right.   But that doesn't mean a law can't be passed to make it illegal.     

Drunk driving laws were all but non-esistent when  was younger.   Now most of you don't know any different because someone said "WTF?" and got the laws to change.

Even if there isn't a specific law about up-skirt photos, there are laws about harassing/endangering minors and possession of child pornography.  

KatieinBkln

Fuck everyone and everything. Sometimes I find myself wishing to reverse my beliefs and decide that there should be a Hell, if only to have a good place to put judges like this one.

lyndausvi

HaileyDancingbear said:

lyndausvi said:

What I take from this is laws haven't caught up to technology.   A lot of states have passed up skirting laws when they realized they didn't exist in their own state.     

When this country was started cameras didn't even exist.   When they were invented they were these huge ass cameras that you couldn't be sneaky like that.  Now here we are with technology that can do disgusting creepy things like this but the laws are not there to make it illegal.

While disgusting and unmoral, the judge might be right.   But that doesn't mean a law can't be passed to make it illegal.     

Drunk driving laws were all but non-esistent when  was younger.   Now most of you don't know any different because someone said "WTF?" and got the laws to change.

Even if there isn't a specific law about up-skirt photos, there are laws about harassing/endangering minors and possession of child pornography.  

 If pictures of kids in their underwear were child pornography then there would be a lot of parents in jail.      Most child porn and peeping Tom laws are against "nude" and "naked" photos being taken. Not clothed.   That is what makes this thing difficult to swallow.  When they passed a lot of those laws cell phone cameras were not the norm.

Sadly something like this is exactly why new law is created.  Some asshole does something that is morally reprehensible, but not necessarily illegal under the current laws.

A quick search shows only 2 states have such up skirting laws.  Texas had the law but it's being rewritten because of it's wording went against the first amendment. 

larrygaga

Not that I agree with any of this, of course, but it looks like the lawyer did what he's supposed to do. Defend his client.

Although we have serious problems about women being property and not full people, at least it's better to live here than like India where they throw acid in your face if you don't marry the guy who took pictures of your underwear.

Hopefully this guy gets some street justice.

FiancB

This is insane. I'm not sure whether it is actually happening more or if I'm only more aware of it, but it really seems like more and more misogynistic rulings and laws are being made or attempted. f

Good point about not having the laws in place, but I still don't see how it's possible for someone to not get in trouble for seeking out and stealing pornographic material from an obvious minor minding her own business.

banana468

lyndausvi said:

rcher912 said:

My rage was triggered at the patriarchy earlier this week when the Supreme Court refused to hear a case where a woman was fired for needing to breastfeed (needing privacy to pump).

The lower court had ruled against her because...

wait for it.....

It's not sexist to fire her because men can sometimes lactate, too, (and ostensibly, they can handle it much better than a hysterical woman can).

I read that the other day. That is really fucked up.    I thought there were laws in place to protect women who breastfeed?  Having to give them a private non-bathoom place?   I guess not.

There are. I feel like there has to be more to that story. Based on some of the comments, some portions were left out.

It still sounds screwed up but I feel like Nationwide didn't present their side in the article which makes it hard to assess the truth.

rcher912

banana468 said: rcher912 said: My rage was triggered at the patriarchy earlier this week when the Supreme Court refused to hear a case where a woman was fired for needing to breastfeed (needing privacy to pump).
The lower court had ruled against her because...
wait for it.....
It's not sexist to fire her because men can sometimes lactate, too, (and ostensibly, they can handle it much better than a hysterical woman can). I read that the other day. That is really fucked up.    I thought there were laws in place to protect women who breastfeed?  Having to give them a private non-bathoom place?   I guess not.


There are. I feel like there has to be more to that story. Based on some of the comments, some portions were left out. It still sounds screwed up but I feel like Nationwide didn't present their side in the article which makes it hard to assess the truth.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree. The strangest part was that they had the accommodations, they just weren't made available to this woman (something about needing 3 days to process the paperwork), and it also sounds like this woman got stuck with The Worst Supervisor Ever, who's the one who made the really offensive comments and told her how her resignation letter should be written (and also apparently told her that all the work she missed on maternity leave must be made up in the next 2 weeks) -- none of this sounds like company policy, just an awful, awful, sexist boss.

Still not sure what "sometimes men lactate" has to do with it.

novella1186

I hope this comes back on the judge. And I hope it comes back worse on this piece of shit creeper who did this. That's fucking sick, she's a little girl. Fuck that awful bullshit.

If I was this girl's mother, I'd be looking for him...

JCbride2015

rcher912 said:

banana468 said:

rcher912 said:

My rage was triggered at the patriarchy earlier this week when the Supreme Court refused to hear a case where a woman was fired for needing to breastfeed (needing privacy to pump).

The lower court had ruled against her because...

wait for it.....

It's not sexist to fire her because men can sometimes lactate, too, (and ostensibly, they can handle it much better than a hysterical woman can).

I read that the other day. That is really fucked up.    I thought there were laws in place to protect women who breastfeed?  Having to give them a private non-bathoom place?   I guess not.

There are. I feel like there has to be more to that story. Based on some of the comments, some portions were left out. It still sounds screwed up but I feel like Nationwide didn't present their side in the article which makes it hard to assess the truth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. The strangest part was that they had the accommodations, they just weren't made available to this woman (something about needing 3 days to process the paperwork), and it also sounds like this woman got stuck with The Worst Supervisor Ever, who's the one who made the really offensive comments and told her how her resignation letter should be written (and also apparently told her that all the work she missed on maternity leave must be made up in the next 2 weeks) -- none of this sounds like company policy, just an awful, awful, sexist boss.

Still not sure what "sometimes men lactate" has to do with it.

To make a long story short, it's because of bullshit Equal Protection cases that essentially said, you aren't violating Equal Protection if what you're doing doesn't exactly draw a line between men and women.  There's a famous case in which the Court ruled that pregnancy discrimination did not count as sex discrimination.  The Court said, "This box has pregnant people in it [all women]" and "This box has non-pregnant people in it [women and men]."  So since the rule benefits "non-pregnant people," which includes both women and men, it's not discriminatory on the basis of sex.  Congress actually went and passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in response to that ruling.

So I can see them dividing up the classes as "lactating people" and "non-lactating people" and saying that theoretically there could be both women and men in both classes.  Hence, not sex discrimination.

That is some damn fine lawyering moral gymnastics to make that argument.  I don't like it one bit.  But it actually makes sense in the fucked-up world of Supreme Court jurisprudence.  **Opens up Google to make sure it wasn't my law firm's case...**

ETA: I think Snopes seems to present both sides of the case pretty well.  Interesting stuff.

Kahlyla

Sometimes my husband says he'd like to go into business offering his "consulting" services in the field of street justice. Sometimes I want to say, 'Hmmhmm, go ahead, dear."

theartistformerlyknownas

rcher912 said:

banana468 said:

lyndausvi said:

rcher912 said:

My rage was triggered at the patriarchy earlier this week when the Supreme Court refused to hear a case where a woman was fired for needing to breastfeed (needing privacy to pump).

The lower court had ruled against her because...

wait for it.....

It's not sexist to fire her because men can sometimes lactate, too, (and ostensibly, they can handle it much better than a hysterical woman can).

I read that the other day. That is really fucked up.    I thought there were laws in place to protect women who breastfeed?  Having to give them a private non-bathoom place?   I guess not.

There are. I feel like there has to be more to that story. Based on some of the comments, some portions were left out.

It still sounds screwed up but I feel like Nationwide didn't present their side in the article which makes it hard to assess the truth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. The strangest part was that they had the accommodations, they just weren't made available to this woman (something about needing 3 days to process the paperwork), and it also sounds like this woman got stuck with The Worst Supervisor Ever, who's the one who made the really offensive comments and told her how her resignation letter should be written (and also apparently told her that all the work she missed on maternity leave must be made up in the next 2 weeks) -- none of this sounds like company policy, just an awful, awful, sexist boss.

Still not sure what "sometimes men lactate" has to do with it.

----------------------------------------fucking boxes--------------------
I'm too lazy to look it up right now but this was on Snopes as not completely true.

lyndausvi

It seems like the BF woman lost her case mostly because she did not fight hard enough for her job.  It appears she resigned without going to HR.    I guess they are saying she should have given HR a chance to fix the problem, instead she just resigned.

I had boss try to push me out.  Even wrote me up 3 times for BS things causing me to be suspended with a recommendation of being terminated.   I did go to HR, kept my job, had the write-ups removed and the manger was let go.     In a big company like Nationwide I think a trip to HR would have been my next move, not resigning.

JennyColada

lyndausvi said:

It seems like the BF woman lost her case mostly because she did not fight hard enough for her job.  It appears she resigned without going to HR.    I guess they are saying she should have given HR a chance to fix the problem, instead she just resigned.

I had boss try to push me out.  Even wrote me up 3 times for BS things causing me to be suspended with a recommendation of being terminated.   I did go to HR, kept my job, had the write-ups removed and the manger was let go.     In a big company like Nationwide I think a trip to HR would have been my next move, not resigning.

Man, this makes me jealous.

At one of my past jobs, my manager was a real piece of work and was rude and condescending and would write me up for things that weren't against company policy. When I called HR they told me that I am "obviously emotional" and that I should just talk to my boss again because it's clearly all a misunderstanding on my part. And they went on to tell me that it was wrong of me to call HR without asking my manager for permission first, that I should have consulted with her about the "next steps".

HR's reaction honestly made me fearful that I'd be written up for contacting HR about this situation. 

huskypuppy14

JennyColada said:

lyndausvi said:

It seems like the BF woman lost her case mostly because she did not fight hard enough for her job.  It appears she resigned without going to HR.    I guess they are saying she should have given HR a chance to fix the problem, instead she just resigned.

I had boss try to push me out.  Even wrote me up 3 times for BS things causing me to be suspended with a recommendation of being terminated.   I did go to HR, kept my job, had the write-ups removed and the manger was let go.     In a big company like Nationwide I think a trip to HR would have been my next move, not resigning.

Man, this makes me jealous.

At one of my past jobs, my manager was a real piece of work and was rude and condescending and would write me up for things that weren't against company policy. When I called HR they told me that I am "obviously emotional" and that I should just talk to my boss again because it's clearly all a misunderstanding on my part. And they went on to tell me that it was wrong of me to call HR without asking my manager for permission first, that I should have consulted with her about the "next steps".

HR's reaction honestly made me fearful that I'd be written up for contacting HR about this situation. 

Pretty sure that's not how it works. Terrible HR department.

drunkenwitch

The judge is a pedophile too, that's the only reason I can see for letting this piece of shit off the hook.

lyndausvi

drunkenwitch said:

The judge is a pedophile too, that's the only reason I can see for letting this piece of shit off the hook.

No, that is not the only reason.

Just because we assume things like sticking a camera up a woman's skirt should be a crime doesn't mean they are.  If a law isn't on the books a judge can't decide on his own to now make it one.  It doesn't work that way.  The job of the legislator is to create new laws.   That is the way our gov't works.

This situation is gross and disgusting.  No woman, let alone a child, should have to worry about up-skirting while walking around.  One would assume it would be illegal, but as I said before most peeping Tom and child porn laws on the books only deal with being naked/nude, not clothed.  That small little detail can make a huge difference when ittrupeting the law.

  It's now up to the residents to lobby their legislator to either expand existing laws or create new ones so it does become illegal.

[Deleted User]