Men, I am begging you: please stop using dating apps as debating apps.
I am a single, liberal, feminist woman, and I’m not interested in dating a man who isn’t likeminded. Instead of accidentally going on a bunch of first dates with Trump voters, I’m pretty clear about my opinions on my dating profiles. I have a website where I sell anti-Trump t-shirts, with proceeds benefiting organizations directly impacted by his policies. Not only do I wear the shirts in two of my photos, I clearly state “I own AbortMikePence.com,” the site I sell the shirts on. I don’t bring this up because I want to debate politics, I bring it up because I don’t want to spend the rest of my life defending things I believe to be important to my partner. Not being liberal is a deal breaker for me.
Oftentimes on OkCupid, I’ll get a message from an angry man who wants to explain to me why he hates “O’Bummer” and why I’m an idiot, but Bumble is pretty safe — after all, we can’t message each other unless we’ve matched. Or so I thought.
Last month I went to a wedding in Charleston, South Carolina. While I was there, I guess Bumble showed my profile results to people around me — because three weeks after I got home, I noticed an email from one of my potential matches.
Apparently, some poor little conservative male snowflake found my Bumble profile to be the most offensive thing he had ever seen. Since this angry man could not message me on Bumble, he went to my website and got my email. He then made a fake email account so he could send me the following novel:
There are so many things wrong with this message, but I’d like to draw attention to the line “I am just waiting for the day I get the go ahead to grab a rifle. Because a peaceful resolution will not occur. You parasites are a plague.” Look, I’m not an expert — but I think the man who is so enraged by a stranger’s 300 character Bumble profile that he has to go through hoops to email her probably shouldn’t have a rifle.
So I’m sorry, Mr. NOT a beta male. I’m sorry if I hurt your little fee-fees with my preference to date men who are not like you. After all, I am just a nasty shitlib woman, living a lie. My only regret is that, yes, indeed — TrumpsRussiaTies.com is taken.
On January 27th, Donald called me at lunchtime. He invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my boyfriend too, but decided to have just me this time, with my boyfriend coming next time. It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I assumed my boss’s boss would only invite me to a dinner with others.
I was wrong. It turned out to be just the two of us. Donald greeted me with a large smile and showed me to my seat, as though this was normal behavior for a boss and his employee. Despite presumably having access to a lot of table settings, two high backed chairs were placed next to each other at an uncomfortably small oval table. Half a dozen white roses were placed in a vase, with a trio candelabra next to it. I couldn’t help but notice how close the petals were to the flame. Other than quickly walking in and out to serve us our food, waiters made themselves scarce.
Donald started by asking me if I wanted to keep my job, which I found strange because I have worked here for years and I also like being able to pay my rent. I assured him that yes, I intended to stay in my position. He said that a lot of people would like to have my job, and he would understand if I wanted to walk away.
My instincts told me that a one-on-one setting meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask to keep my job and create some sort of inappropriate relationship between the two of us. That concerned me greatly. My mind started to race: I wondered when the waiters would return to the room, and where Melania was, and my eyes briefly landed on the candelabra, as I instinctively began to check it for sharp edges.
I replied that I loved my job and intended to stay. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I said he could always count on me to tell him the truth.
A few moments later, Donald leaned forward. His voice husky and breathy, he whispered, “I need loyalty.” His eyes dropped from my face, down to my chest, and back up. “I expect….loyalty.”
Time stood still. Panic rose up in me. I could feel every atom in my body shaking; I was on high alert. I willed my cheeks to not turn red, and I mashed on my tongue with my teeth. But I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.
Near the end of the dinner, Donald returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from my direct boss, his good friend Jeff. He then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from me.” He paused and then said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” It is possible we understood the phrase “honest loyalty” differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty- had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.
As I mentioned, Donald was my boss’s boss. I returned from the dinner shaken, and not knowing what else I could do, decided to document my experience in a memo. I hoped that he would not ask any more favors of me, and that I could avoid being alone with him in the future.
It’s exhausting to stay outraged about everything that has happened in Trump’s first 100 days, but at least Attorney General Jeff Sessions keeps going out of his way to remind us how horrible he is.
Sessions has made it clear that fear mongering should replace facts when it comes to creating policy. Forget the antics of the rest of the administration; keeping up with Sessions’s decisions alone is almost a full time job. Here are some of the shitty things that shitty Jeff Sessions has done (and I won’t even talk about how I watched him dig around his nose and stare at his boogers when I was at his confirmation hearing):
When Sessions was sworn in, President Trump signed a handful of executive actions that were right in line with Sessions’s beliefs. One was the Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers. In this order, the President called for “multi-jurisdiction prosecution efforts” to deal with violence against police officers.
Never mind that violence against police is down. Never mind that there is no epidemic of unsolved crimes against cops. Facts clearly aren’t important to the Trump administration.
If facts mattered, the Violence Against Women Act wouldn’t have met so much resistance from Jeff Sessions back in 2013.Until 2015, tribal officers could not prosecute non-Natives who committed crimes on tribal land — resulting in Native American women being sexually assaulted more than four times the national average, primarily by men who were not Native American. This was a problem the 2013 renewal of the Violence Against Women Act specifically addressed by allowing some tribal courts to sometimes prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence.
Sessions voted against VAWA, claiming that this tribal court provision was a “big concern” for him. But now, when he wants to convince the country that police are the ones we need to protect from violence, forcing multi-jurisdiction prosecution efforts is fine. Cool.
Created by Obama in 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were born after 6/15/81 and who came to America before they were 16. Applicants have to be enrolled in school and pass a background check. The idea behind DACA was to help young people who were working to become valuable members of society by streamlining the citizenship process, especially since so many of the people eligible were primarily raised in the US.
Back in January, Donald Trump said that DACA recipients “shouldn’t be very worried.” By February, Juan Manuel Montes became the first DACA recipient to be deported. Now it’s April, and I’m still not convinced Donald Trump knows what DACA is — but I’m damn sure Sessions knows and hates DACA.
“I believe everyone that enters the country unlawfully is subject to being deported…we’re going to focus first, as the president has directed us, on the criminal element,” Sessions announced on ABC’s This Week (emphasis mine).
Their first focus might be the criminal element, but Sessions has a pretty messed up perception of constitutes criminal activity. Over 1.5 million undocumented people have told the federal government that they are here and applied for DACA. Now these same people have to place their trust in Sessions, who seems to have a burning desire to end the program.
Black Lives Matter
After high profile police killings, the DOJ will come into a city and investigate the police force. They will spend a year or two interviewing citizens and cops, doing ride alongs, holding meetings, and combing through documents to understand if there are problems within the structure of the department. After they create a report on their findings, they work with the city to make a consent decree — a legally binding contract that details how the city will address the issues the DOJ has found. Baltimore is, of course, one of the cities to be a recipient of such an investigation — and it has the unique position of having the process of creating and signing the consent decree spread between the Obama and Trump administrations.
Right before Baltimore held a public hearing on their consent decree, the DOJ asked for a delay in the implementation of the consent decree, and a review of all active decrees. The judge denied the Baltimore motion, and the public hearing went on as scheduled. Despite having the motion denied, the DOJ decided to again bring up the possibility of delaying the process.
“Reasonable minds may disagree if this decree is the perfect way forward,” stated John Gore, the DOJ’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General, describing the verydocument his department created and signed. Gore added that the current administration has “grave concerns” over the decree, and reiterated the need for the already-denied motion for a delay.
The city responded that, not only was a delay was not necessary, but community input was the most important part of reform, and that both parties went to great lengths to involve the community in the creation of the consent decree. To delay it would shake the confidence the community has in the reform — of course, since Attorney General Jeff Sessions believes consent decrees “undermine respect for our police officers,” I assume that protecting the community is no longer a function of the DOJ.
Under any other circumstances, watching the DOJ argue against justice would have been unusual. In a way, Sessions’s DOJ helped bring residents and the police together: of the 49 residents who spoke at this hearing, the vast majority sided with the stance of the Baltimore Police Department.
In July 2015, I attended a very crowded town hall meeting at Sojourner-Douglass College. The first half of the meeting was a panel discussion, and the second half was community members sharing their stories with representatives from the Department of Justice. Many tears were shed as citizens repeated how grateful they were that the DOJ was finally there, that someone was finally listening to their stories. At the time, had you told me that these representatives would become the sabotaging enemies of reform, I would have laughed at you.
The day after the Baltimore Uprising, people gathered around the riot police set up at Penn and North. There were prayers, debates, and crying — but there was also a feeling of cautious optimism.. People expressed hope that maybe now the government would do for Baltimore what it had done for Ferguson — a full investigation into the workings of the police department. Maybe now people would listen.
I would find it hard to believe that this sentiment is not expressed nationwide, every time a police shooting sparks large protests. So what happens when we take away the only government organization that listens?
When the next Freddie Gray or Philando Castile is killed, when the next city has had enough — will Sessions directly say, “sorry, but we no longer wish to help those who have been victimized by the police”? Did John Gore’s years working for Jones Day prepare him to be the one to tell people the official stance of the federal government is that their lives and struggles don’t matter?
Do you want a riot, Jeff Sessions? Because this is how you get a riot.
Because we are living in the bizarre hell that is 2017, discussing whether or not the tweets from the President of the United States are impeachable is a real topic of conversation. So, for my liberal snowflake comrades, I have done the dirty work of combing through Trump’s Twitter and pulling out some of his impeachable tweets. I thought this was going to be a lot easier to do, but it turns out it’s exhaustingly time consuming. I certainly thought I’d get through more than two Twitter rants — but I just don’t have enough Xanax. So here is part one of a series of impeachable actions Trump has done, starting with just a handful of his tweets. You’re welcome, and I accept boxes of wine should you wish to express your gratitude.
What is an impeachable offense?
The Constitution says that the President can be impeached for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But what does that really mean in the context of tweeting? Put very simply, “high crimes and misdemeanors” refers to any action taken by a public official that abuses their power in some capacity. This could include something like, I don’t know, using your name to make money while you’re in office (don’t worry, this is just part one. We’ll cover it all!). This also means that, while “normal” crimes could be impeachable offenses, actions that an average person would be able to do without a problem could be grounds for impeachment. When it was ordinary businessman Donald Trump tweeting crazy thoughts, that’s fine. No one cares. When it is POTUS Donald Trump tweeting crazy thoughts, it’s a problem because as President his tweets have more value. And yes, our founding fathers are spinning in their graves over this.
With that explained, let’s dive straight into hell.
The tweets (there are so many):
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
Thanks to an article published on the ever credible website Breitbart, Trump decided that Obama had his “wires tapped.”
Obamagate is easily the most egregious and most talked about example of Trump’s impeachable Twitter crimes. I believe this is the most cut and dry of the Twitter offenses. First, Trump is accusing Obama of illegally wiretapping him while Obama was still in office — something that, if true, would have been impeachable behavior. Second, this isn’t your crazy uncle rampaging on Twitter (because, come on, if Trump is your uncle, there is no way you’re reading this). As Noah Feldman pointed out on Slate’s Trumpcast: Trump has the power to punish people, and threatening to prosecute people without evidence “is certainly an abuse of power.” Keeping this in mind, you can understand how it’s easy to view the Obamagate tweets as threats to the former president (remember that, because it’s going to be a pretty critical point — both for the rest of the article, and presumably for the remainder of Trump’s presidency).
When was the last time you heard Donald Trump say “lock her up”? A direct call to imprison his opponent while he’s the sitting President would be horrifying. I think that someone in the White House must understand this, and that’s why the issue has been dropped. But just because Trump isn’t directly saying “lock him up,” the fact that he is the POTUS means he could indeed lock him up. I do not expect anyone currently working around Trump to understand nuance, nor do I expect Trump to get it if it’s explained to him.
But wait! Haven’t we learned that there was indeed a FISA warrant in Trump Tower? Isn’t Trump right? Yes and no, in that order. Trump’s tweet accuses Obama himself of wire tapping him — and that would be highly illegal. While the FBI did indeed issue a FISA warrant for Trump adviser Carter Page, only a petulant child who hasn’t even passed eight grade civics would angrily equate this to “Obama wire tapped Trump.” It’s incredibly difficult to obtain a FISA, and it is not taken lightly — meaning that a FISA wouldn’t be signed off on just so Obama could spy on Donald Trump. On the plus side for the rest of us, Trump’s tweet declassified the FISA warrant, and allowed reporters to send FOIA requests on the investigation into the Trump campaign. Good move!
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
These tweets were in response to a judge putting a hold on Trump’s Muslim ban EO.
Just like Obamagate, this is an example of Trump using his position to threaten another public official. This is a direct threat to a member of the judiciary system in America — and to judicial process. Personally, I find this to be worse than Obamagate. This is POTUS bullying and trying to intimidate a federal judge for disagreeing with him; this is a direct threat to democracy.
Trump wasn’t the only one threatening the “so-called judge” — security had to be beefed up for some of the judges who were involved in the EO disasters. Remember when Trump incited violence at his campaign rallies? Just this month, a judge determined that the protesters who were attacked can proceed with a lawsuit against Trump and his campaign. To impeach someone for actions taken before they became POTUS would be unheard of — but this parallels the not so veiled threats toward judges who don’t allow Trump to do whatever he wants. We should all be closely following what happens in this lawsuit, because it seems like Trump will continue to insult whoever he wants, with no regard for the impact of his power as POTUS to both legally and socially harm someone else.
Next week: More tweets? Russia? Who knows what I’ll choose!
I’m going to give Kayla the benefit of the doubt and assume (hope?) that she didn’t pick the article title — condescendingly referring to the women you’re sexualizing as “girls” seems in particularly poor taste. But she did write the article, so even though the title basically covers the entire post…let’s dive right in.
As spring is starting to finally show its face after a long harsh winter, many women are becoming excited about all of the new spring fashion lines that are being released full of bright colors and fun pieces.
Can I just say — and I’m sorry, maybe this is because I’m a salty writer without a publisher — this already sounds a piece that was commissioned for $1 per 1,000 words on Freelancer.com? Or possibly something a robot wrote.
However, upon the release of the new swimsuit line, I believe many women, including myself, are less than thrilled.
The new swimsuit line???? Whose new swimsuit line?? IS THERE ONLY ONE SWIMSUIT PRODUCING COMPANY FOR ALL WOMEN THIS YEAR?! So much for making America great again.
If you have no idea what I’m talking about, check it out. Just type “Bathing Suit Trends for 2017” into your Google search bar and “Cheeky” bikini bottoms will more than likely be at the top of your list.
“I am writing an article about something, but you’ll have to Google it to figure out what I’m talking about.” I also really love the directions on how to Google. I guess most people who will agree with this article are about 90, so maybe they will need the instructions.
Coming from a female who cares about her body and self-image, this not only makes me angry but disappointed in the lack of value that women still have today.
Oh. I’m sorry I was mean earlier. I liked it better when you were telling me to Google things instead of sharing your shitty opinions. Well, it sure is unfortunate that there is only THE SINGULAR SWIMSUIT LINE. Coming from a female (why the choice of “female” over “woman”?) who cares about her body and SELF-image, what other people wear doesn’t fucking impact my life at all.
First off, why should it be socially acceptable to wear basically a thong around in public in the summer months?
Kayla, how about we double down on this: ISN’T A SWIMSUIT JUST BASICALLY PANTIES AND A BRA?! WHY HAVE WOMEN EVER BEEN ALLOWED TO WEAR THIS TRASH?! AREN’T A BRA AND PANTIES BASICALLY BEING NAKED?! ISN’T BEING NAKED BASICALLY SLUTTY SEX?! Let’s get rid of pools and beaches completely!
Have bathing suit companies forgotten that often times, women are around young children and family members when sporting a bathing suit?
I fucking hate when there is one trend and I am FORCED TO WEAR IT. Like, I hate jeans. I think people who say jeans are comfortable are liars. Yet Big Fashion constantly forces me to wear jeans! Oh. Wait. Also, I personally wear different dresses around my family than I do when I’m going to the club. It doesn’t mean that all dresses need to be appropriate for dinner with my dad. And stop thinking “young children” care about your ass.
More importantly, what does it teach the younger generation who see women wearing these types of bathing suits? It surely doesn’t teach them about having self-respect or dignity in themselves.
I mean, not if you’re around to poison their minds with your backwards shaming views. But yeah, it does teach the younger generation that dressing how you want is okay and nothing to be ashamed of.
Now, I understand people are going to disagree with me saying things such as “Women should be free to wear whatever they want, men exercise that right, why shouldn’t we?” or “If you’re confident in it, rock it.” Which if you’re one of these people, I understand where you are coming from, BUT do you often see men roaming around in a speedo to attract attention?
This is a really good point. As a woman, literally everything I do is to attract attention. I can’t help it. It’s in my DNA.
Therefore, why do women feel the need to succumb to showing more and more skin each year to attract attention?
You just answered this question: because everything we do is for attention, duh.
Also, I’m all for the self-confidence, you should feel amazing and proud of what you wear; however, a line needs to be drawn firmly in the sand in regards to what is appropriate and what is not and “cheeky” bathing suit bottoms are not appropriate.
THANK FUCKING GOD WE HAVE YOU HERE TO MAKE THESE RULES FOR ALL OF US. What IS appropriate?! I need to know, Kayla. You never tell us. How can I dress myself without your guidance?!
I mean think of yourself as a parent,
would you want to see your daughter flaunting “her stuff” in a bathing suit that barely covers anything while boys flock to her every side? I think not.
How many sides does my daughter have?! I don’t think it’s the swimsuit that’s causing the flocking here. Can I sell her cubed torso to science?
Although I know many women this summer will not be listening to my advice, however, for those of you who do, thank you for showing respect to your bodies as well as yourselves.
But you didn’t really give any advice. I DON’T KNOW WHAT KIND OF SWIMSUIT I CAN WEAR. PLEASE HELP.
Our world needs more women like you to prove that we are characters of substance and value, not just itemized beauty to gawk at.
Our world needs more women who aren’t judgmental pieces of shit to prove that we (all women?!) are characters of substance and value, not just items for you to direct your bizarre anger from your internalized misogyny.
As for me, you’ll find me this summer laying on a beach with a bathing suit that fully covers my behind.
Bitch, thanks to this post you’ll find me this summer laying on a beach, face down, with an actual Victoria’s Secret lace thong on.
Like many others, this past weekend I went to the Women’s March on Washington. During the two months of Facebook discussion leading up to the march, I watched as white feminists were introduced to intersectional feminism for the first time. I wasn’t sure how white feminism and intersectionality were going to mesh, but I think that the now viral “White Women Voted for Trump” sign carried around by Angela Peoples was perfect.
In an interview with The Root, Peoples described the response to her sign: “Most [people] were saying ‘Not this white woman,’ or ‘No one I know!'” And it was at that point anger and frustration bubbled up inside me, to the point that I had to take a break from reading for a minute.
“Not this white woman” and “no one I know” are such bullshit things to say. People were bussed in from all over the country to come this event! I live in the blue af DC metro area, and I know dozens of white women that voted for Trump. If no one you know voted for Trump, either people are afraid to be honest with you, or you live in a ridiculously homogenous bubble.
There’s no one weird sect of my white friends that chose Trump; they range from people I went to a small private elementary school with to former University of Maryland classmates. Almost my entire fucking family voted for him! I’m also one of the most vocally pro-BLM white people that I personally know, and I have been flooding my newsfeed with “hands up, don’t shoot” since Ferguson’s unrest, and a countdown to Trump’s reign starting from “Mexicans are rapists.” I’ve written for Cop Block, I write for liberal immigration lawyers, I have ripped apart both criticism of Baltimore’s uprising and praise of O’Malley on local and national platforms. I have lost work contracts and friends over my militantly pro-black, pro-woman opinions. And even with all of this, people still casually tell me they voted for Trump. Not only would it never cross my mind to give a negative response to a sign someone on my side is holding, but come on. If people tell me they voted for Trump, then I know they told other people. “Yup we sure did, and I know a fuck ton of them that I’m trying to work on,” is the most truthful response.
After Freddie Gray died, I gave up a travel heavy contract I had to write a book about the social, racial, and economic history of Baltimore and how these things culminated in the death of Freddie Gray. Because here is the thing: plenty of people who look like me would rather listen to me tell the history of the black experience in Baltimore instead of listening to, you know, black people. I am a white woman, and consequently I still benefit from white privilege.
So white women! Don’t step on people’s toes or put words in their mouth or act like you understand another’s struggle as though you’ve lived, but DO acknowledge that we benefit from the color of our skin. Take time to learn, and then act as a facilitator to help bridge communication between your fellow white feminists and the vast array of other types of feminists that exist. Don’t get distracted or bitter about signs pointing out that white women don’t show up to protest when black women are shot by the police, or by signs that show the actual statistics of who vote for Trump. Those things are accurate, and you don’t get to be salty with someone for delivering an accurate message.
I am here to share facts and data to help people begin to grasp the challenges faced by those who are less privileged than they are. I am NOT here to defend my fellow whites to communities already marginalized by white people. So what if someone thinks I might be a Trump voter because I’m white? Boo. Hoo. Hey, I’m gonna guess it fucking sucks more to have cops think you’re an armed threat just because you’re black.
Let’s not make #NotAllWhiteWomen the new #NotAllMen. White women benefit from white supremacy, and we need to acknowledge that. Otherwise we are just like the guys who think that sexism and the patriarchy are real, but THEY aren’t sexist so they aren’t part of the problem.