Category Archives: Women

UK Needs to “Debate” Sexist Dress Code in 21st Century

The Associated Press reports:

high-heelsBritish lawmakers are focusing on footwear, asking whether employers should be able to make women wear high heels as part of corporate dress codes.

Members of Parliament on Monday will debate banning mandatory workplace high heels, in response to a petition by a receptionist who was sent home for wearing flat shoes.

You don’t get much more sexist than dictating high heels in a dress code. And they wonder why women march around the world.


Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics, sexism, Women

Laurie Luhn Cashing In On Others’ Sexual Harassment



luhn-ailesLaurie Luhn, a self-proclaimed Fox News “victim” is making the TV talk show rounds to bemoan her treatment at the hands of Pig Extraordinaire, Roger Ailes. It was really just a matter of time after Gretchen Carlson’s big settlement. Ignore her tears however, until you read her story; compare the one she’s telling now to the one she told New York Magazine, in a piece titled: “Former Fox News Booker Says She Was Sexually Harassed and ‘Psychologically Tortured’ by Roger Ailes for More Than 20 Years“. Contrary to the post’s title, or Ms. Luhn’s portrayal of herself as a victim, you’ll find she willingly jumped into the sewer with Roger Ailes, because he could get her what she wanted. The New York article begins:


“Professionally adrift (a flowery term for unemployed) and emotionally unmoored”, hmm, those darned female “emotions”. Trust me, Laurie Luhn was more calculating than “unmoored”. She says she “worked for” Roger Ailes for 20 years; if by “worked for” she means prostituted herself and pimped for, then yes, she did “work for” Ailes.

Luhn’s story is an “account” of her deplorable complicity in Ailes’ predatory behavior; from accepting money and employment from him for sex, to setting up unknowing young women in one on ones with him. Not only did Ms. Luhn willingly put herself in the situation she describes now, she chose to stay in it. Do not confuse consent with coercion; she and Ailes both got what they wanted out of their arrangement.

In her very first meeting with Ailes, which was supposed to be a job interview, Ms.Luhn just happened to mention that she had “nothing but bills”.  After the meeting, she gave him a ride to the airport where she told New York Mag, “He leans over and slips me the tongue and kisses me, and hands me a wad of cash.”

Now at this point, a few scenarios are possible:

  • She screams and he jumps out of the car, never to be heard from again
  • She slaps him, and tells him to get out (among other things), throws his money at him and drives off
  • Says bye-bye, drives off with the money thinking sucker (among other things), and he never hears from her again

Ms. Luhn however, accepted his money and advances, and came back for more, essentially striking a deal for her employment. Despite having no background or education in the field, Luhn decided she wanted to work in political communications, and found herself a shortcut to get there. She sought Ailes’ assistance, then agreed to a “quid pro quo” for that position.

Ailes put her on a “retainer that, “…paid for Luhn to be available to meet Ailes when he was in Washington” – at his hotel. Her new “employer” immediately asked her to purchase a “black garter and stockings” to wear when they met, which she did. She was now prostituting herself for a job; far different from going into your boss’ office for a meeting and being surprised by sexual advances, something Luhn set other women up to face:


 Only after being relegated to a bogus job with no responsibility years later, did Luhn suddenly find her emotional “mooring”. Enough in fact, to contact the Fox legal department about sexual harassment, for which she received a hefty settlement.  Even so, she was still trying to use “Daddy Roger”(ugh) to get ahead this past summer when she wrote this in a letter to him (my emphasis):

good soldier

“Generous financial compensation” to the tune of more than 3 million dollars for this “good soldier”, or is it victim? Either way, despite her 20 year “ordeal”, she’s contacting him again for help getting a job This is the definition of sexual harassment according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

EEOC quote

In Ms. Luhn’s case, she agreed to his conduct willingly, in order to obtain her job. She also conspired to set women up for Ailes, which should make her a party to other women’s harassment claims as well. Now, as she does the talk show circuit, she seems to be downplaying her responsibility in their arrangement, and embellishing the poor victim parts of the story. According to the Daily Mail:


He “had her strip”? What power did Ailes have over her at the time; she didn’t work for him, she had supposedly just recently met him. The room had a door, and any self-respecting woman would have slammed it shut behind her. And where’s the part about the airport trip, where she took his money? The part where she could have driven away, never to be heard from again?


She followed this pig and took another job with him, but she thought it would end? She talks like she had no control over the situation. “It continued” because she allowed it. The Daily Mail does report on her initial New York Magazine story in their article, and several discrepancies are evident; they close the piece with this:


luhn-nowToo bad the truth didn’t “set her free” a couple of decades and 3 million dollars ago; HUNDREDS of women might have been spared the indignities she willingly accepted. Laurie Luhn is the worst kind of woman; she used sex to get what she wanted, yet now she wants you to believe she was a helpless toy for Roger Ailes, with no control over what happened to her. Now that there’s money to be made on the talk show circuit, and probably a book deal, her story will continue to evolve, or devolve, depending on which way you look at it. I have no sympathy for this woman; she makes a mockery of all the women who have battled real sexual harassment over decades.

Don’t get me wrong, there are far too many bosses like Ailes, who abuse their positions and harass, even assault their female employees. Unfortunately, there are also women like Luhn, who know exactly what they’re doing when they use slobs like him to get ahead. This woman used sex to get and keep a job, while knowingly and willingly putting other women at risk.

Laurie Luhn is no better than Roger Aisles.


Leave a Comment

Filed under Fox News, Roger Ailes, Sexual Harassment, Women

WaPo’s Marcus Confuses Infidelity With Sexism

In a recent opinion piece for the Washington Post titled: “Trump is right: Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history is fair game“, Ruth Marcus attempts to justify Donald Trump’s playing of the Bill’s Affairs card. She writes:

Bill_Hillary_ClintonWhat is the relevance of Bill Clinton’s conduct for Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Ordinarily, I would argue that the sins of the husband should not be visited on the wife. What Bill Clinton did counts against him, not her, and I would include in that her decision to stick with him. What happens inside a marriage is the couple’s business, and no one else’s…

But Hillary Clinton has made two moves that lead me, gulp, to agree with Trump on the “fair game” front. She is (smartly) using her husband as a campaign surrogate, and simultaneously (correctly) calling Trump sexist.

Marcus just gets it REALLY wrong. First of all, whatever one thinks of Bill Clinton’s extra-marital affairs, they do not make him a sexist. In the case of Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern Bill took up with while President, she was 22 at the time, and an adult. As I’ve said before, unless she’d been cloistered somewhere, she knew she was fooling around with a married man; he just happened to be the President. If Ms. Lewinski had wanted to, she could have left the situation at any time, or gone public if she felt harrassed. 

callista.cindyOn the other hand, paramours tend to get a free pass when it comes to political campaigns. In the cases of Callista Gingrich and Cindy McCain for example, they weren’t lambasted for their parts in the affairs that broke up two marriages, because it was their husbands seeking office, not them. No one thought it a liability when they did campaign events for their husbands. Much as one might condemn infidelity, it is not sexism.

trumpWhich brings me to my second point: Donald Trump IS a sexist. He simultaneously denigrates women, while treating his wives like ornaments. He has referred to women as “pieces of ass“, gold diggers, Bimbos, Dogs, and Pigs. You can call Bill Clinton a lot of things, but woman hater isn’t one of them.

Marcus’ WaPo piece is not the first time someone has tried to hold Hillary partially responsible for her husband’s behavior. She has been called his “enabler“, and accused of  ignoring his behavior to “reap the benefits of being the FLOTUS”. (Whatever the hell that means.)

Bill and Hillary

President Clinton disappointed many people by tarnishing both the office of the President, and his legacy, with the Lewinsky mess. That being said, Bill may be a lot of things, but sexist isn’t one of them.

The fact is, Hillary would be crazy not to use Bill in her campaign; he regularly polls at a 60% Favorability Rating, can speak off the cuff to any issue, and is her biggest supporter. They’re a great team.

One final point: How Hillary Clinton chooses to handle her marital issues, including her reasons for staying with Bill, is nobody’s business. Whatever their relationship, it’s obvious they love each other. The only thing that matters in the end is that she is running for President, not her husband.


Leave a Comment

Filed under 2016 Campaigns, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Women