Reducing Barriers to Reporting Harassment

by Stephanie Zvan

Cross posted from AlmostDiamonds

With the conversations and reporting of #metoo showing no signs of slowing down, we’re being provided with a trove of information about the reporting of harassment: who is reporting, who isn’t, the social and institutional responses to harassment reports. This all means we’re able to see how serial harassers continue to function over time.

Sometimes, often, the problem is as simple as organizations and individuals with the power to make a difference failing in their responsibilities. At the Weinstein Company, executives helped Harvey Weinstein settle a multitude of harassment claims without taking him out of the position that facilitated that harassment. Outside the company, gossip columnists used him to advance their own careers while keeping his behavior out of the news. NPR News knew about Michael Oreskes behavior his entire tenure but didn’t fire him until it became public.

Several people who’ve come forward have also spoken about experiencing or fearing retaliation as a consequence of speaking up. Unfortunately, retaliation is a reasonable concern. It’s a common experience when reporting harassment in the workplace. An EEOC report suggests an overwhelming majority of those who report face retaliation from their employer or their peers.

Given that kind of response, it absurd to blame targets of harassment for not stopping their harassers from harassing again or even for not coming forward before now. If they stay quiet, they’re merely doing what we’ve trained them to do. The tsunami that is #metoo demonstrates that when conditions change, people are ready to report.

That means that those of us who have and enforce codes of conduct have the power to make harassment claims heard. I don’t mean we need to shout the names of those who cross boundaries from the rooftops. That can get you sued. No, I mean we can make decisions that lower the barriers to reporting. We can make it easier for those who want to speak out about their experiences to talk to us.

How? Well, we can start by remembering that most people don’t do this very often. Someone who’s been targeted for harassment at your event or in your organization has probably never reported harassment before they consider whether they want to report to you. We can and should take steps to make it easier.

The first step is telling them what constitutes harassment. It’s all well and good to disallow harassment in your spaces, but if you only tell people “harassment” is prohibited, there will be miscommunication. This is partly because “harassment” is both a term of art and a word in common, everyday usage.

When we’re talking about employment law, harassment only becomes prohibited when it affects someone’s job, “when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).” Most of us doing events or running organizations on volunteer labor don’t want to let things get that severe. We start losing attendees and volunteers long before that, because we don’t pay people to put up with nonsense. Sample policies for these spaces list the kinds of behaviors that needlessly push people away so everyone is clear on what’s acceptable and what’s reportable.

The next step is telling people how to report. Unfortunately, we sometimes skip this step, thinking it suffices to say, “Please, tell us”, without telling people how to identify “us”. This can mean that people think they’re reporting when they’re not. From a post by Elise Matthesen on how to report sexual harassment:

Both HR and Legal were in touch with me over the following weeks. HR called and emailed enough times that my husband started calling them “your good friends at HR.” They also followed through on checking with the other people, and did so with a promptness that was good to see.

Although their behavior was professional and respectful, I was stunned when I found out that mine was the first formal report filed there as well. From various discussions in person and online, I knew for certain that I was not the only one to have reported inappropriate behavior by this person to his employer. It turned out that the previous reports had been made confidentially and not through HR and Legal. Therefore my report was the first one, because it was the first one that had ever been formally recorded.

Corporations (and conventions with formal procedures) live and die by the written word. “Records, or it didn’t happen” is how it works, at least as far as doing anything official about it. So here I was, and here we all were, with a situation where this had definitely happened before, but which we had to treat as if it were the first time — because for formal purposes, it was.

Not everyone may want to make a formal report, but a good code of conduct will tell them how.

A complainant who doesn’t want to make a formal report doesn’t let you off the hook, however. While an informal complaint may not, in itself, leave you with enough information to act, that informal complaint is information. You’re still the person responsible for deciding how to proceed, and you can’t un-know something you’ve been told.

Keep records on everything related to code of conduct violations, from what you were told to how you decided to react. It’s institutional memory that will help pass on your values and processes. If and when someone does report formally, it will turn up patterns. If someone is using your event or organization as their personal hunting grounds, you’ll know. Even if no one ever reports formally, you may see a pattern of low-level infractions that makes it worth having a discreet word with someone who continually rides the line of acceptability.

It may also keep you from facing a situation like the one the Center for Inquiry faced when Lawrence Krauss’s long history of misconduct came to light. Though they’d received complaints of an attempted assault and other inappropriate behavior, no formal complaints were filed. The lack of formal processes, however, doesn’t change the fact that their leadership knew about this behavior. They’re rightly under fire for having allowed him opportunities to continue. They’re still responsible for their own behavior even if no victim filed the kind of report that would have “forced” them to act.

Ideally, of course, you do want a formal report. Sometimes, as with attempted assault, you have to act to keep your members and attendees safe. (Sarah Jeong makes a good case that we should do some hard thinking about how much of the responsibility for consequences we put on victims as well. I expect, however, that changing this practice will also require significant work to shift the blame for outcomes off those who report violations.) In cases like this, it helps to have all the information you can get. So how do you get it?

The easiest way is to make reporting as comfortable and easy as possible. Start by building into your processes the understanding that someone filing a report is doing you a favor. Is it disruptive to have to devote resources to taking reports in the middle of an event, or even after you think your event is finished and you can rest? Of course it is. However, it’s even more disruptive for the person who planned to attend, maybe learn something, and have a good time. If they give you that time, you should appreciate and honor it.

Make the process as easy for them as possible. Identify people who can devote the time to taking reports without interruption. Make sure everyone else working or volunteering for you knows how to find those people easily. Train them before you need them. Make sure they understand what information you need and how to balance your needs with the needs of a person reporting a violation.

There are also important things to avoid.

Back at Chi-Fi 0 in Chicago, I was on a panel discussing anti-harassment policies and I told the audience that if the methods a con or event has for dealing with harassment create more anxiety for the victim than the actual incident of harassment, you’re doing something wrong. At the time, I said this referring to an incident that happened to me a couple years ago at TAM where the security hired by the event pressured me into reporting a minor harassment incident, took me into a storage closet and questioned me about the incident until I cried, then told me I couldn’t tell anyone about them or their questioning. It all seemed suspiciously like an overreaction meant to protect the event organizers rather than the attendees. You can have the most well-written anti-harassment policy of any con ever, but if a harassment incident is reported to you and you conveniently ignore it to avoid dealing with the fallout or if you make the response to a report so traumatic for the victim that making a report is just not worth it, then your well-written anti-harassment policy is insufficient.

Photo of "Wrong Way" traffic sign against a leafy background.
We need to be careful we don’t tell people not to report. Credit: “Wrong Way Sign” by Victor Björkund, CC BY 2.0

TAM replaced their code of conduct that year with a policy (unwritten) that event or hotel security would handle any complaints. That’s a great idea if you want to replicate the conditions that lead so few people to report being raped. It’s not a terrible idea if you want to look like HR, complete with the threat of retaliation. It’s very, very bad, however, if your goal isn’t keeping people with complaints as far away from you as possible.

You want this information. That means you want to make people comfortable when they report. You don’t want to make reporting more intimidating than putting up with the behavior being reported. You certainly don’t want to make it more intimidating than just walking away from all association with you.

This is why it’s critical to talk about reporting in your code of conduct. That’s your main mechanism for communicating everything you have to say about harassment and how you’ll deal with it. That’s where people will look when they decide whether to report.

What should be in your code of conduct? At a minimum:

  • Your desire to hear about bad experiences. This seems like it should be a given, particularly when you do want to hear the bad news, but not everyone does. Make it clear what you want.
  • At least a brief description of what happens when you report. You can include more online if you wish, but help people visualize how their experience will go.
  • What you’re prepared to do for those who report. Maybe someone needs a quiet place and a glass of water after a bad experience. Maybe they need to feel safe until a friend can show up. Maybe they need a rape crisis line. What can you help with?
  • What the range of responses to a report may be. As long as targets of harassment are held responsible for what happens to the people they report, they need to know this to make informed decisions. If you’re committed to “zero tolerance” (not a best practice), you should say so.
  • The fact that decisions on consequences may not be up to the reporter. In a world where “Listen to the victims” is a mantra, we can forget that we may have to put other people’s safety first sometimes. Make that explicit.

None of those have to be long essays, though some codes of conduct do devote a lot of space to them. But they should be there to lower the barriers to reporting misconduct. Doing that will help us all deal with harassment as it happens instead of allowing it to quietly go on for decades the way it has.

Michelle Bachelet


michelle-bacheletMichelle Bachelet was born September 29, 1951 in Santiago, Chile, to an archaeologist mother and Chilean Air Force General father. In high school, Bachelet participated in theater, volleyball and choir, and became her class representative and president. She attended the University of Chile for an education in medicine, and during Salvadore Allende’s government, she participated in the Socialist Youth movement. General Pinochet, supported by the US Central Intelligence Agency, led a coup in 1973 against the democratically-elected Allende government, for which Bachelet’s father worked. Bachelet watched the bombing of La Moneda Palace from the roof of her medical campus, and later that day learned that her father had been arrested for treason. Her father died in prison a year later as a result of torture. Instead of intimidating Bachelet, this event motivated her to become even more active in Chile’s Socialist Party, and she began hiding people wanted by Pinochet’s regime. In 1975, Pinochet’s secret police arrested Bachelet and her mother, separated them, and submitted them to interrogation and torture. Bachelet and her mother were exiled to Australia after about 20 days of detention, and from there moved to East Germany, where Bachelet attended medical school in Berlin. While in Germany, Bachelet studied German—increasing her number of fluent languages to five—and married an architect and fellow Chilean exile. They had two children together.

Bachelet and her family returned to Chile in 1979, and she graduated from the University of Chile as a surgeon in 1982. While the dictatorship was still in place, Bachelet’s job applications were mostly rejected “for political reasons,” but she found work in pediatrics and public health. At this time, she participated in many political organizations that worked to restore democracy in Chile. She separated from her husband in the late 1980s, but could not divorce him until divorce was legalized in Chile in 2004. When democracy was restored to the country in 1990, she began work as a epidemiologist in Santiago, which led to work in the National AIDS Commission and consultation work with the World Health Organization and the Pan-American Health Organization. She joined the Health Ministry in 1994, and graduated at the top of her class in military strategy at the National Academy of Strategic and Political Studies. She then took a course on Continental Defense at the American Defense College in Washington, D.C., in 1997. Upon return to Chile, she was immediately hired in the Ministry of Defense. She joined the Socialist Party’s Political Committee from 1998 to 2000, at which time she was named Minister of Health, a position responsible for managing 70,000 employees and supervising the entire country’s health care system. As Minister, Bachelet extended medical and dental coverage to all patients in the public health system, founded the Healthcare Research Council and laid the groundwork for the National Commission on the Protection of the Rights of Mental Health Patients. She also increased drug coverage for AIDS patients, and those suffering from depression and schizophrenia. In 2002, President Lagos named Dr. Bachelet the head of the Defense Ministry, making her the first woman in Latin America to hold such a position. In 2004, Dr. Bachelet announced her bid for president. A final election runoff was held in January 2006, and she won with 53.5% of the vote—making her the first woman to hold Chile’s highest office. President Bachelet, whose cabinet is half female, has endured much criticism for her open agnosticism and secular reforms, such as making the morning-after pill free at state-run hospitals, an act which infuriated the Roman Catholic Church. As reported in the Washington Post, Bachelet said, “I’m agnostic . . . I believe in the state” (“Female, Agnostic and the Next Presidente?” Dec. 10, 2005). In November 2009, following her outstanding handling of the economic crisis, Bachelet’s approval rating broke records at 80%.

“I was a woman, a divorcee, a socialist, an agnostic . . . all possible sins together.”

—-Michelle Bachelet, on why she was an unlikely contender for president of a strongly Roman Catholic country, in “Socialist Bachelet wins Chilean presidency,” USA Today, Jan. 15, 2009

Compiled by Noah Bunnell

This profile was provided courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

© Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Madalyn Murray O’Hair

Madalyn Murray O'Hair (1919 - 1995) photo by Alan Light
Madalyn Murray O’Hair (1919 – 1995) photo by Alan Light


Time magazine called Madalyn Murray O’Hair the most hated woman in America during her reign as a leading secularist in the second half of the 20th century. Her unyielding and, to most, abrasive defense of the wall separating government from religion was as effective as it was controversial. She relished every opportunity to provoke the faithful and to challenge public officials who illegally granted religion special privilege in American life. School prayer was the first of many issues that brought Madalyn to public attention.

The Public Takes Notice

Madalyn burst on the scene of American piety when she objected to Bible readings in the Baltimore public schools, which were attended by her eldest son, William. In concert with a related case in Pennsylvania, known as Abington School District v. Schempp, the Supreme Court invalidated public school prayer throughout the country because of her legal actions.

O’Hair founded American Atheists and debated religious leaders on a variety of issues across the land. She annoyed nearly everyone, including fellow religious skeptics – and her life truly was an unhappy mess. At one time she had a national radio program which she used to educate the citizenry about religion and theism. She is credited with helping put a halt to plans that would have had astronaut Buzz Aldrin staging a televised communion on the moon! She also blocked a Texas law that would have required public officials to affirm belief in a Supreme Being. O’Hair tried, like many other atheists since, to get In God We Trust off coins, and to prevent the pope from saying mass on the Mall in Washington, D.C. – and to put a stop to tax exemptions for churches.

She filed numerous lawsuits in defense of the U.S. secular Constitution, including many even supporters believed had little chance of success. O’Hair believed that certain lost causes have symbolic and consciousness-raising value.

A Passion for Liberty

O’Hare often spoke of her faith in man’s ability to transform the world by his own efforts, a faith that might have been less warranted than even the faith religionists assign to the promises of a heaven or the dangers of a hell.

O’Hair was murdered in 1995 by a career criminal and two accomplices. The crime was motivated by greed, not passions inflamed by her convictions or life work.

Timeless Observations Worth Remembering

Madalyn was very quotable – here are a few of my favorites:

I’ll tell you what you did with atheists for about 1500 years. You outlawed them from the universities or any teaching careers, besmirched their reputations, banned or burned their books or their writings of any kind, drove them into exile, humiliated them, seized their properties, arrested them for blasphemy. You dehumanized them with beatings and exquisite torture, gouged out their eyes, slit their tongues, stretched, crushed, or broke their limbs, tore off their breasts if they were women, crushed their scrotums if they were men, imprisoned them, stabbed them, disemboweled them, hanged them, burnt them alive. And you have nerve enough to complain to me that I laugh at you?

This religion gives you goals which are outside of reality. It enriches your fantasy life with ugliness. It fills you with ideas of guilt over the most common human experiences — usually related to sex. In this room, right now, each of you, in your own lives, has agonized over the fact that you have masturbated. Masturbation isn’t sinful. If it feels good — do it. You have my blessing, and you yourself know how it relaxes you.

People say, `So what? It’s just a little cross.’ What if it were a little swastika?

Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

R.I.P. brave soul.

-by Donald B. Ardell

What are we Talking About

What are we Talking About? Reddit, Serena Williams, and Charleston

What are we Talking AboutStraight from our Member’s Only Group to you, what we and our members are reading and discussing!

This week in the member’s only group we were talking about:

  1. Reddit Chief Ousted by Rebellion from Site’s Users
  2. Pope Stresses Need to Protect Poor and Environment
  3. In Defense of Serena Williams
  4. Humanism at Work National Conference
  5. “Positive Attitude” Bullshit:  On the Dangers of “Radical Self-Love”
  6. The Charleston Imperative: Why Feminism and Antiracism Must be Linked
  7. Irish Abortion Survey Finds Majority of People Support Decriminalization
  8. EACH Woman Act
  9. Tell the FIFA Executive Committee: Pay Women Players Fairly
What are we Talking About

What are we Talking About? Fuckable Hiring Earnings

What are we Talking AboutStraight from our Member’s Only Group to you, what we and our members are reading and discussing!

This week in the member’s only group we were talking about:

  1. The Fuckable Butch
  2. Reddit Moderators are Locking up the Sites most Popular Pages in Protest
  3. No Charges for Bill Cosby in Atlantic Cirty Rape Allegations
  4. What Makes You Your Gender? – Growing Up Trans
  5. Earnings Data and the Gender Wage Gap
  6. Announcing the End of the AdaCamp Program
  7. Girl Scouts New $185,000 in 24 Hours After Declining Anti-Transgender Donation
  8. Supreme Court Allows Texas Abortion Clinics to Remain Open
What are we Talking About

What are we Talking About? Confederate Flag, Transgender Teen, and Tim Hunt Copy

What are we Talking AboutThere are many interesting and insightful conversations happening in the Members Only Facebook group.  Want to know what we are talking about?  This weekly series highlights a few articles that members found interesting.

This week in the member’s only group we were talking about (curated links):

  1. South Carolina Order Black Workers to Raise Confederate Flag Ahead of White Supremacist Rally
  2. Secular Women Work Conference Update
  3. Video:  Rebirth of a Transgender Teenager
  4. Video:  Transforming History
  5. I’m a Female Scientist, and I Agree  with Tim Hunt
  6. Meryl Streep Just Sent a Powerful Message to Every Single Member of Congress
  7. Why We Need Feminism Part N:  Misogyny Online
  8. Things for White People to do to Fight Racism in the US
  9. Mike Huckabee Call for Less Dialog on Race and More “Conversions” for Jesus
  10. Confessions of a Bad Feminist
What are we Talking About

What are we Talking About? Confederate Flag, Transgender Teen, and Tim Hunt

What are we Talking AboutThere are many interesting and insightful conversations happening in the Members Only Facebook group.  Want to know what we are talking about?  This weekly series highlights a few articles that members found interesting.

This week in the member’s only group we were talking about (curated links):

  1. South Carolina Order Black Workers to Raise Confederate Flag Ahead of White Supremacist Rally
  2. Secular Women Work Conference Update
  3. Video:  Rebirth of a Transgender Teenager
  4. Video:  Transforming History
  5. I’m a Female Scientist, and I Agree  with Tim Hunt
  6. Meryl Streep Just Sent a Powerful Message to Every Single Member of Congress
  7. Why We Need Feminism Part N:  Misogyny Online
  8. Things for White People to do to Fight Racism in the US
  9. Mike Huckabee Call for Less Dialog on Race and More “Conversions” for Jesus
  10. Confessions of a Bad Feminist
What are we Talking About

What are we Talking About? Quiverfull, Atheist Community, Best State for Women

What are we Talking AboutThere are many interesting and insightful conversations happening in the Members Only Facebook group.  Want to know what we are talking about?  This weekly series highlights a few articles that members found interesting.

This week in the member’s only group we were talking about (curated links):

  1. Mom of gun-toting Quiverfull family
  2. Antievolution lawsuit filed in West Virginia
  3. What you need to know about the Josh Duggar police report
  4. This is how the Duggar’s homeschooling cirriculum allegedly dealt with sexual abuse
  5. 5 ways the atheist community is hurting itself
  6. Women, rape allegations and the struggle to be believed
  7. Rape kits investigation
  8. Things my male tech colleagues have actually said to me, annotated
  9. 12 school to prison pipeline facts that every person should know
  10. The best states for women in America, in 11 maps and charts
Anne Nicol Gaylor secular woman FFRF

Anne Nicol Gaylor

Anne Nicol Gaylor secular woman FFRFAnne Nicol Gaylor was born in 1926 near Tomah, Wisconsin. Along with her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, in 1976 she co-founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), and remained its president until 2005. Under her tenure, the foundation won high-profile legal victories for church/state separation, including overturning a state law in Wisconsin that made Good Friday an official holiday, and ending Christian indoctrination in Tennessee public schools. She grew FFRF’s rolls from 3 to over 19,000, with members in all 50 U.S. states and Canada. Her daughter Annie Laurie and son-in-law Dan Barker took over leadership in 2005 as co-presidents of the organization, and they continue FFRF’s tradition of fierce advocacy on behalf of secularism at the federal, state and local levels.

Less well-known is that the same year she co-founded FFRF, Gaylor also co-founded another nonprofit: Women’s Medical Fund. The fund provides small grants ($200 on average) to those unable to pay the full cost of an abortion. For over 35 years she has been the sole volunteer, answering every desperate call personally to the tune of some 800 women and girls every year, and writing every single check — almost 20,000 to date. With donations coming from individual donors as well as charitable foundations, the fund has paid out nearly $3 million toward abortion services for those who cannot afford them. Before starting the fund, Gaylor had been an abortion rights advocate for at least a decade: in 1967 as editor of the Middleton Times-Tribune she penned an editorial calling for Wisconsin to legalize abortion. (First-trimester abortions subsequently became legal in Wisconsin in 1970.)

Sadly, the kind of abortion advocacy Gaylor pioneered is every bit as necessary today as it was decades ago, as the deadly onslaught against women’s autonomy has only accelerated in recent years. Wisconsin is one of the worst states in this regard: 93 percent of Wisconsin counties presently have no abortion provider, and the state has enacted pretty much the complete suite of draconian laws, including biased counseling required by physicians and a mandatory 24 hour delay, parental consent requirements, prohibition of private insurance coverage for abortion, insidious TRAP laws and prohibitions on public funding. Indeed, it was her work on abortion rights that led Gaylor to turn her focus to what she saw as the root cause of so much sexist oppression: religion. Women’s rights groups were (and to a large extent still are) loathe to confront the god-shaped elephant in the room: that is why Anne Nicol Gaylor founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which has since generated countless benefits to secularists of all stripes. For many feminists including this author, the path that leads to non-belief and secularism is paved by feminism—every step of the way. Perhaps movement atheists who genuinely desire to grow their numbers would be wise to take note of the well-worn road so many of their potential allies take to find them, and put up some “welcome” signs along the way?

As you might imagine, over the decades Gaylor’s activism has generated some pushback. She was discussing her 1975 book Abortion is a Blessing on a Philadelphia talk show when an audience member rushed her from behind and put her in a chokehold. (Just like Jesus would do, no doubt.) More recently, an article about her work in The Wisconsin State Journal prompted histrionic responses condemning her. Here, for instance, is an excerpt from a piece by a certain weasel of the Catholic Deacon species:

“What Anne Nicol Gaylor is doing is Evil. It should not be given the legally favored status of a ‘Charity’ under the law. It is more akin to a War crime. After all, there is an undeclared War on the Womb and she is helping to fund it by writing checks.”

Then there was this one in a Milwaukee paper from “generally a right-wing guy” who refers to Gaylor as “Sweet little old Granny Blood-Money.” He is “astonished” and “horrified” at Gaylor’s heroic work:

“One donor last year, a California woman who’d in the past given to the anti-religion group Gaylor used to lead, forked over $20,000, based presumably on Gaylor’s fund-raising pitch, which tells of helping girls pregnant at 12 or a girl raped by her father.

Both, of course, are horrible situations, almost as horrible as being not merely pregnant but chopped into little pieces and not at 12 but at a much, much more vulnerable age. After all, being killed by a choice-armed mother is much less tragic than being raped by monstrous father, yes?

No, actually. It’s not.”

Unlike the generally right-wing guy, informed and compassionate people like Anne Nicol Gaylor fully understand that one thing that actually is worse than than being raped by a monstrous father is being forced to have one’s monstrous father’s child. These hypocrites—who it goes without saying would never condone anyone harvesting their own blood or organs without their consent—probably know even less than Richard Dawkins does about the tragic consequences of childhood sexual abuse. But Anne Nicol Gaylor knows. And she has fought tooth and nail to ensure that victims do not have their pain and misery compounded because of exactly this kind of unthinking, unfeeling religious nonsense.

Gaylor has been the recipient of many honors and awards, from the American Humanist Association’s Humanist Heroine Award in 1985 to NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Tiller Award in 2007. She is also a sharp, witty and engaging writer, and many of her works can be read online for free at FFRF. At 88 years old, Anne Nicol Gaylor is president emerita of FFRF, and still works there as a consultant. While we cannot say the same for any generally right-wing guys, we can say unequivocally that our world is a far, far better place for having her in it.

by Iris Vander Pluym


What are we Talking About

What are we Talking About? All Male, Sex Ed, and Too Catholic to Speak

What are we Talking AboutThere are many interesting and insightful conversations happening in the Members Only Facebook group.  Want to know what we are talking about?  This weekly series highlights a few articles that members found interesting.

This week in the member’s only group we were talking about (curated links):

  1. Congrats, You Have an All Male Panel!
  2. Sex Ed Works Better When it Addresses Power in Relationships
  3. Behind America’s seismic shifts on transgenderism, loving parents
  4. Inside Le Femme, the Transgender Finishing School
  5. Students Say Bishop Too Catholic to Speak at Catholic School
  6. “Always Maintain Your Masculinity”: Misogynists Freak out Over Charlize Theron’s Role in Mad Max”
  7. Fox News Guest:  Women ‘Less Ambitious’ and ‘Happier at Home’
  8. Pope Francis Will Send ‘Missionaries of Mercy’ to Absolve Women on Abortion ‘Sin’
  9. Keep Harriet Tubman – and all Women – off the $20 Bill
  10. Bus Company Under Fire for ‘Ride me all day for £3’ adverts REMOVES posters