Transcript | Ep. 139: Ask Unladylike: Divorce and Dress Codes

Cristen: I think that you're deluding yourself if you think that you can quote unquote teach a child how to dress appropriately. You can teach a child, though, how to expect to be treated and what they are worth and what their body means.

[theme music]

Caroline: Hey y’all and welcome to Unladylike. I’m Caroline.

Cristen: I’m Cristen. And we are back with another installment of Ask Unladylike, where we answer the questions that Google just can’t handle!

Caroline: Questions like, “How can we help The Youths blossom into dazzling, well-adjusted adults with as little trauma as possible?”

Cristen: Oh, so simple! I ran across some Yahoo answers that might be illuminating…

Caroline: Great. Great.

Cristen: Totally kidding. We actually had to call on our brilliant Unladylike listeners to help us answer our first advice request today. It’s from a mom who’s worried that divorce is going to ruin her daughter’s life forever. And then! A teacher needs some dress code assistance.

Caroline: Well, I guess I shouldn’t have worn my hotpants and crop top to record this then …

Cristen: Yeah because, it’s kinda cold outside, Caroline!

Caroline: Yeah, it really is inappropriate.

Cristen: Well cover your midriff ma’am and let’s get to it!

[stinger]

Cristen: All right, Caroline, this first letter is short and sweet and right to the point, and it's a big question. Listener Erica wants to know, “So I have a 6-year-old daughter. She's so much more mature and growing up faster than I thought. Do you think us being apart because of divorced parents will affect her as badly as my worst nightmares tell me? All caps: THANKS, Erica.”

Caroline: Erica! Aw. Kids, let me just say, kids are resilient. The fact that you're asking this question makes me think that you're going to work really hard to make sure your daughter is safe and healthy and happy. And I'm sorry you're going through a rough time.

Cristen: Yeah, I think that the shortest answer that I can give to Erica's question is, no, it won't. It will not affect her as badly as your worst nightmares tell you. But Caroline, before we get more into the divorce element, can I tell you what else jumped out to me?

Caroline: Yeah.

Cristen: Well, I think that to me. It sounds like Erica's anxiety isn't so much about the divorce, per se, but rather seeing her daughter growing up faster than she anticipated and and that FOMO, the parental FOMO, of missing out on important moments or not being present enough. And when I think about that, I mean, what parent, whether they are 24/7 with their child or on the other side of the world from them doesn't tend to express that when they start to notice that their kids are growing up. I mean, I have friends who are seeing their babies, you know, just starting to walk and they're already like, “oh, my God, but I wish they were still like babes in arms.” Like, I think- I think that maybe is.. is part of the deeper anxiety and something that's, I think, totally normal.

Caroline: Yeah, and when it comes to that anxiety of potentially spending time apart, there's a lot you can do to both help yourself feel better and help your daughter feel better. And a lot of that, Erica, ends up being pretty common-sense, standard stuff. You know, predictability, sense of routines and patterns, you know, so that your daughter knows what to expect, whether that's in terms of your relationship with your ex or time she gets to spend with you or that ex and just communicating about what she can expect, whether that is about her routine and her schedule or about how you and your ex will be relating to each other. As long as she knows she's got like a safe space to go to and that she can predictably rely on you, I think that'll help a lot with the anxiety.

Cristen: Absolutely, and look, if COVID taught us anything, it is one, that shaking hands is disgusting, and two and two, it taught us that we don't have to be in person to be in relationship.

Caroline: Yeah!

Cristen: And that is something especially given the age that your daughter is at, now is the perfect time to start developing the habits that Caroline just mentioned in terms of reliability and predictability on your end, but also establishing whatever kinds of keeping in touch traditions you might want to maintain, whether that is sending each other like funny gifs that you see or going on Tik Tok together. I don't know. There are so many ways, though, that we can be in each other's lives, even if we might seem far apart. And Erica, I also want to say that my parents have been married my whole life, and I'm not saying they should have divorced, but I am saying that growing up in a two parent household can still leave kids (and Cristens) with plenty of baggage, too. So. No, again, to reiterate, no. The divorce is not going to ruin your daughter.

Caroline: No, no, I mean, it's... it's totally common for there to be short term effects: anxiety, anger, disbelief, sadness, all of these things are totally normal. And I know that as a mom, you might feel incredible guilt at watching your daughter experience negative emotions like that, but — not to be like “studies show” — but, Erica, studies show that a lot of those initial negative feelings really tend to dissipate by like a year or two in. Once those predictable routines have been established. Honestly, the stuff that does the long term damage is witnessing the conflict between you and your ex, if there is any. I mean, I'm kind of saying that in general. Witnessing conflict, whether that's before, during or after the divorce. And limiting that is, goes a long way to helping reduce anxiety.

Cristen: Caroline, your parents are not divorced, right?

Caroline: Correct

Cristen: My parents are not divorced. So listen, Erica, you don't have to take it from two kids who did not live through divorce or even from the studies that we have cited, because we put this question out to unladylike listeners and, I mean, as if we didn't already know that unladies are just the best community. Y'all sent us so, so many amazing pieces of advice and lived experience that I think that we we need to pass the mic, so to speak, over to our listeners, because they have firsthand experience of of going through this. And I think that what they have to say will - will make you feel a bit better, Erica.

Caroline: Yeah, we actually, one of the the first people to respond on Twitter was another Erica. She - her parents divorced when she was 7. So right there in that same age bracket as your daughter. And she wrote, “though obviously that's scary for a child, what lingers isn't my parents splitting. It's the times I was used as a pawn. Remember your kid is a loved one and not a tool to punish your former partner with. Make sure your kid knows they're loved.” So, again, right. That goes back to the idea of of conflict and the idea that it's not necessarily the divorce that will lead to a bunch of stress as it can be like preexisting parenting or marital strife.

Cristen: Yeah, I think in response to that tweet from other Erica, a listener named Han tweeted, “My parents used to complain about each other to me, which was really not helpful. Just because you don't love each other anymore doesn't mean that I don't love them both. Go to therapy, talk to your friends. Don't put that burden on your kids.” And Han, I will also add to that that goes for whether your parents are together or not.

Caroline: Well, speaking of if your parents are together, Cristen, can I share a snippet of a tweet thread that really just blew my mind?

Cristen: Of course, Caroline, please.

Caroline: So, in response to our call for input, a listener who goes by Peach tweeted a great thread that's really helpful, and the part that really jumped out to me was some real talk, Cristen, that actually I ended up just like staring blankly at the wall for a couple of minutes thinking this one over. She was 6 when her parents split up and she's gone on to become a marriage and family therapist because of the stellar experience in therapy that she had going through that divorce as a kid. Anyway, she wrote, “It's true that being around a marriage that isn't working, especially if you've already tried therapy, even if it isn't toxic or abusive, is worse on the kids because it teaches them what kind of relationships are worth staying in. It also means they have to be around people who are obviously unhappy or they'll think that if they feel and act similarly in their relationships, that it's normal or even healthy.” And let me tell you, this blew my mind because it put words to ways that I have felt about how my parents, the way they relate to each other in their marriage, has affected me and the way that I am in my romantic relationships and have been in the past. And so, yeah, it's not, again, it's not necessarily the divorce and divorcing is not worse on the kids, staying together is not better for the kids necessarily.

Cristen: Patricia over on our Facebook page shared 10 excellent tips for parenting through divorce. And we're not going to share all 10 because they're very detailed. But some of those that jumped out to us were: “Answer all questions they have, but keep it to their level of understanding,” “Don't deliberately malign the other parent, but don't sugarcoat things either,” “Let the child know it's normal to feel anger at both parents and love both parents at the same time and that this is OK.” And finally, “Let the child have as much agency as is appropriate for their age when making decisions.” I mean, a lot of what I'm hearing, Caroline, is: you are going to be teaching your child how to deal with complicated and sometimes conflicting emotions that are going to naturally happen in their lives, but maybe they're just learning about it at an earlier age. And chances are that if you are doing it with the kind of foresight that Erica clearly is, that can probably be a great thing for your child's development down the line, which is something that we heard in an e-mail from a listener named Bri.

Caroline: Bri emailed us and said, “I stand by the fact that the divorce was one of the best things my parents ever did for our family because of it, we all went to therapy: individually, all together as a full family, just us kids, us and one parent, us and the other parent. It gave me a much more nuanced perspective on family, grief, and the freedom to actually address things rather than staying quiet and being another family that ignores their issues and suffers in silence.”

Cristen: And finally, the last bit of advice we have to share comes from a listener named Lucy. And Erica, she really just wanted to send you a little bit of a love letter. I think. So Lucy's email starts. “I write to you as a current mom whose parents got divorced when I was 16. My parents stayed together for the kids and it was the worst decision they could have made. My brothers and I grew up in a house without seeing an example of a happy, communicative couple. They should have divorced a long time ago. Both my parents were so much happier once they divorced. It will take time for everyone to adjust. But if in the end it allows you to be happy and find someone or something that makes you also happy, that's the most important thing. I am so proud of you for making this leap. You got this, mama.”

Caroline: Cristen, I love our listeners.

Cristen: Me, too.

Caroline: I am so grateful that they wrote in to help Erica.

Cristen: Yes. And to share their personal and vulnerable experiences. Thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who reached out with advice for Erica.

Caroline: We’re going to take a quick break.

Cristen: When we come back, it’s off to school to tackle dress codes!

Caroline: But Cristen, what will I wear?!?

Cristen: I mean you’re stuck with that crop top, girl!

Caroline: Oh lord, do you have a trenchcoat?

Cristen: I do have some Unladylike sweatshirts…

Caroline: Oh, nice! Stick around!

[stinger]

Cristen: We’re back, and Caroline, we have moved on from divorce to dress codes. Our next letter comes from an unladylike listener named Alison - would you do me the honor of reading it?

Caroline: I’d love to. “Dear Unladies,” Allison starts. No, dear Allison. She writes, “I recently listened to your episode on Title IX, and I find myself struggling with some conflicting thoughts and feelings about dress codes. I teach eighth grade science in a rural school district and due to my background working on, quote, “hard-to-serve” urban schools, I'm frequently called upon to intervene and mediate conflicts between staff and students, especially dress code violations. It goes almost without saying that the majority of these have to do with short skirts, exposed bellies and plunging necklines. On one hand, I want to teach my girls how to dress in a way that helps them be taken seriously in the world at large. On the other hand, I think it's very important for my girls to learn how to express themselves and explore their burgeoning sexuality in a safe environment. I also want to empower them to change the world that judges them by their appearance and dress. Any time I find myself in this type of discussion, I try to acknowledge this as well as the fact that we aren't there yet and that we live in a very conservative climate. I'm afraid that I'm sending mixed signals or just being a hypocrite in general. Are there any resources, or insights that might help?”

Cristen: OK, Alison, while I am not an educational resource, I do have some insights, although you get to decide whether they're helpful or not, so. My top line takeaway from this is that this isn't just about teaching students how to dress in a way that they'll be taken seriously, OK? It's about teaching teachers how to take students seriously instead of sexualizing their cleavage, bellies and thighs. Because if those are the majority of dress code violations, as you point out in the letter, Alison, then I have a hunch there is a bigger problem with teachers problematizing and sexualizing certain body types, i.e. body types that might not fit as neatly into tiny sizes of clothes, girls who might be developing breasts and chests and butts and thighs. So how are the other teachers talking to these students when they are penalizing them? Are they calling them out in front of the class? Are they shaming them or are they doing it discreetly? Like, I think that when it comes to this this internal conflict you're feeling, my advice for addressing that hypocrisy is not so much in trying to say the right thing or the perfect thing to the students, but role modeling to the other teachers, who are the ones who are wielding the power, how to create a less like body shaming atmosphere for this whole student body.

Caroline: Hmm, yeah, one thing that jumps out to me every time I read an article about a girl being ridiculously and unnecessarily shamed, called out, publicly embarrassed for some perceived dress code infraction. It's always the casual cruelty of the way that it's done and what that casual cruelty communicates. So a lot of times what you'll hear, what we'll hear if we see these articles surface is, you know, a girl was forced to put on some sort of like communal basketball shorts or something over her, over her outfit, or she'll have to put on some sort of jersey or sweatshirt or T-shirt over her top. Or in the case of that one girl a couple of years ago who wore a long sleeve shirt that entirely covered her top, but she did not wear a bra and they made her put another shirt on over her shirt and Band-Aids over her nipples. The fix, so to speak, is almost more traumatizing than any possible, just like, conversation could be. And so I appreciate Alison's take because she clearly wants to be like- she wants to be a benevolent overlord. And it just makes me sad to think that maybe she is working with folks who might be on sort of a cruel power trip over these young girls' bodies and self-expression.

Cristen: Yeah, Alison, I think that you can take the pressure off of yourself in terms of teaching girls how to dress in a way that they will be taken seriously, because the fact of the matter is, school dress codes do not teach kids how to dress or what looks appropriate. Culture does. Their peers do. TikTok influencers do. You know what I mean? Like if if school dress codes somehow like instilled in kids, like set the- set the tone for the way that they are going to dress the rest of their lives like I, I would be, first of all, dressed in a terrible business casual outfit from Express right now. And how many, like private school kids would still just be wearing like plaid uniforms for the rest of their life? Like, no, no, that's not, I don't- I think that you're deluding yourself if you think that you can quote unquote teach a child how to dress appropriately. You can teach a child, though, how to expect to be treated and what they are worth and what their body means. And so I think that the best that you can do in terms of your relationships with the students, Alison, is making yourself a safe space, maybe asking them, if you have one on ones with them when these dress code violations happen, just let them express how they feel about that. And if it seems unfair to them that they are getting dinged for having an exposed belly or their cleavage being out, let them express that. And to the extent that you can, acknowledge the fact that that their bodies are not shameful, that their bodies are not distractions, and that, yes, dress codes can be inherently problematic. And maybe point them to examples of students who have utilized the power of Title IX in particular to express their dress code rights. You can, in your own way at least, create that safe, destigmatized, nonjudgmental space for the child when they are with with you. But again, as much as you can, I think that paying attention to what the teachers are messaging is even more important. Now, Caroline, I think you did find a resource that could be helpful for Alison, that that does come from people in the educational space, right?

Caroline: Yeah, when I was doing a little reading on dress codes, I came across this model that had been developed by the Oregon chapter of the National Organization for Women, which I think is fantastic. I'll post the link in the source doc for this episode. But basically they were sick and tired of hearing about young girls and young women who were being targeted basically and almost harassed by teachers for what they were wearing. And so they devised a, quote, progressive, feminist, anti-racist model policy for Portland Public Schools. This took effect in 2016 and has actually spread to a number of other school districts in the country who have been looking for ways to overhaul, you know, basically like unfair sexist dress codes. And here's what it boils down to, Alison. This is a quote from the article. “The main idea, according to Oregon NOW president Lisa Frack, is that, quote, ‘You have to cover your parts.’” So you have to cover your parts. That's the do. The don't is images of drugs, alcohol, obscenities or like gang attire or anything that could be construed as gang attire. But everything else is is sort of a trust basis. And I say that because in reading about this policy, there was just a lot of fear, among like people in the school district and parents and just like random community members, that if you slacked on the dress code, girls would come to school in like bikinis and it would be mayhem, and boys wouldn't ever be able to concentrate ever again and girls would just be outrageously sexy. And what happened was: basically, nothing. What happened is that kids came to school and were honestly just able to focus because there was so much less time spent punishing them for dress code infractions. And the important thing there is that studies have shown that the more kids are punished, the more they are likely to drop out.

Cristen: Yeah, and and what we do know is that in public schools, dress code violations disproportionately affect girls of color, Black girls in particular. So, you know, if if your school is in any way committed to doing the work of raising students in an anti-racist, anti-sexist, gender-inclusive environment, then the dress code is a prime place to start. And one thing that we've learned from a lot of younger girls that we have worked with is that dress codes are often the gateway to feminism. So really, when these students are in your office talking to you or in your classroom talking to you, you have such an incredible opportunity to make more of a difference, than I think you realize, and by virtue of you even just being there in the school, you are probably making things better for them. And in addition to that Portland model that we'll link to, I would also recommend just checking out resources from the National Women's Law Center. They've done a lot of work around dress codes. And also the organization Know Your IX, which is in reference to Title IX. So that would be Know your I-X as in the Roman numeral nine. So, Alison, such a great question. And you know what? Thank you for helping educate our future Unladies. Because, I mean this goes for all y’all teachers listening, it is no small feat.

Caroline: We’re going to take a quick break.

Cristen: When we come back - it’s time for me to play a game!

Caroline: Dun dun dun. Stick around!

[stinger]

Caroline: We’re back. And Cristen, I wanted to understand more about the roots of dress code nonsense. Like, have they always been inherently sexist, racist and classist?

Cristen: And?

Caroline: Yes, the answer is yes.

Cristen: Yes, yes, and yes!

Caroline: Exactly. The history of fashion restrictions as a method of control goes WAYYY back. Like, take sumptuary laws, for instance.

Crisetn: Sumptuary who-wha?

Caroline: Yeah, ok, so these laws have been around since ancient times. And they basically restricted who could buy what, who could wear what. And they were an effort to visibly preserve social distinctions. They did this in two main ways: number one, they restricted people of lower classes from spending extravagantly — so like if you couldn’t buy or wear things like silk, that would help cement those visible differences between the rich and poor; and number two: they preserved these totally subjective ideas about gender and morality — so think, anti-cross-dressing laws stretching back to Medieval Europe, and just a whole slew of laws from Ancient Rome through Elizabethan England regulating what sex workers could wear so onlookers would be able to distinguish them from “ladies.”

Cristen: Ok, so are sumptuary laws still a thing?

Caroline: Oh god no. No, they’re WAY too hard to enforce. But they still echo in how we expect people to dress and how we police them for it. So! Are you ready to find out just how deeply rooted some of this dress code bullshit is?!

Cristen: Caroline I can barely get myself dressed every day, so I am as ready as I’ll ever be!

Caroline: All right! Well, let’s play a game called You Win Sumptuary, You Lose Sumptuary!

Cristen: Love it. K, what am I playing for?

Caroline: OK, you're playing for my immense respect.

Cristen: Oh fuck. All right.

Caroline: OK. Number one, true or false? According to sumptuary laws in ancient Rome, the only women who could wear togas were sex workers. True or false?

Cristen: True?

Caroline: False. Because it's not just sex workers, it's any disgraced woman, particularly women divorced for adultery.

Cristen: That’s sneaky!

Caroline: If you were a respectable woman, you wore a stola, which looked more like a sleeveless drapey dress.

Cristen: Hmm.

Caroline: OK. Fast forward to 12th century France.

Cristen: OK.

Caroline: What item could sex workers absolutely not wear? Here are your choices. A. Togas B. veils C. jaunty hats. D. High heels.

Cristen: high heels?

Caroline: [INCORRECT ANSWER NOISE] Veils.

Cristen: Ohhh.

Caroline: The veil was a sign of a respectable woman in 12th century France. And side note, if you tore off a woman's veil, you were essentially calling her a prostitute in a negative way.

Cristen: Also, that's just rude.

Caroline: Yeah, I mean, super rude. OK, this one's fun.

Cristen: AH! OK.

Caroline: In the colony of Connecticut, in 1676, a young woman named Hannah Lyman was summoned to court for flouting the Puritans’ sumptuary laws. What did Hannah wear that was so offensive to her Christian brethren?

Cristen: One of those peplum tops? Crop top? Um. Ooh, palazzo pants?

Caroline: Cristen, those are all good guesses. They are all offensive items of clothing. But no, she wore what was called a silk Tiffany hood.

Cristen: What was that, was it Tiffany Blue?

Caroline: It's basically, it's just like a hood that's not attached to anything and just tie it under your chin. But it was made of silk.

Cristen: Ohh

Caroline: It was made of silk. So Hannah was one of 36 young women who were criminally indicted for, quote, “overdress, chiefly in hoods.”

Cristen: Oh my gosh, puritans were nuts.

Caroline: And on her court date, Hannah showed up wearing the very same silken hood that got her in trouble, and the judge was not amused. Not only did she get in trouble for wearing silk, but for quote, “wearing silk in a flaunting manner in an offensive way not only before, but when she stood presented.”

Cristen: Hell yes, Hannah, that reminds me of like it was in the 40s. A woman was arrested for wearing pants and she wore pants to court.

Caroline: Well, fuck, that's my next question.

Cristen: OK, well see if I can still get it right, I only know the broad brush strokes.

Caroline: OK. See, this is what happens when you do you podcast together for a decade! Yeah, there's only so many stones unturned.

Cristen: I've gotten no questions right at this point.

Caroline: Ok, that’s that’s fair! Ok, let’s move on to some unwritten rules.

Cristen: OK.

Caroline: In August 1960, a woman named Lois Rabinowitz showed up to traffic court in New York. The judge ejected her for wearing what?

Cristen: Palazzo pants?

Caroline: Some kind of pants.

Cristen: A trouser?

Caroline: A pant.

Cristen: Well see, OK. That was 1960.

Caroline: Mhm.

Cristen: I thought it was like the 40s.

Caroline: There might have been another case.

Cristen: Oof.

Caroline: I doubt that Lois is the only woman who was ejected for pants.

Cristen: True. True.

Caroline: So the judge freaked out and told Lois to come back later when she was “properly dressed.” She handed the ticket over to her husband to take care of it, and the judge warned him to quote “Start now and clamp down a little, or it'll be too late.” No word on what her husband was wearing, and in case you're still not sure how the judge really felt, he went on to tell reporters — the judge went on to tell reporters — “I get excited about this because I hold womanhood on a high plane and it hurts my sensibilities to see women tearing themselves down from this pedestal.”

Cristen: Was that Brett Kavanaugh? I didn’t know he was that old.

Caroline: Like, truly, what the fuck?

Cristen: Also, would not wearing pants be preferable if you're on a fucking pedestal, that way creeps like this judge can't look up your skirt?

Caroline: Maybe that's why he was mad.

Cristen: Now I'm worked up, Caroline.

Caroline: Good, OK, because we have more pants questions.

Cristen: Good.

Caroline: In 1969, Illinois Representative Charlotte T. Reid made waves when she became the first woman to wear pants on the floor of the U.S. House. Over in the Senate, in what year did Carol Moseley Braun earn that distinction?

Cristen: 1992.

Caroline: Oh my god, you're so close, I’m giving it to you! 1993.

Cristen: Oh!

Caroline: Ding, ding, ding!

Cristen: Ding, ding ding. Finally!

Caroline: Carol Moseley Braun, who became the first Black woman to serve in the Senate, later said the gasps were audible. She didn't know that she was breaking an unwritten rule. Like not only was there social pressure to wear only skirts and dresses, but the actual official door keepers at the Senate would turn you away if you didn't look quote unquote appropriate. So they then had to be told it's OK, let ‘em in if they're wearing pants.

Cristen: Wow, I didn't know- I didn't know she did it unintentionally, yeah.

Caroline: Yeah.

Cristen: She was just going to work.

Caroline: No nonsense. Pants.

Cristen: Fuck yes.

Caroline: Final question. In 1969, students at an Iowa high school planned a show of sartorial rebellion as a political protest. The principal threatened to suspend them if they went through with it. They did go through with it, and they were suspended, and their parents sued. The lawsuit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and it cemented the first dress code law in the United States. So, what did the kids wear and what were they protesting?

Cristen: OK, was it like the end of Grease where they came back in like leather leggings and tight tops?

Caroline: OK, and then what were they protesting?

Cristen: Abstinence?

Caroline: The no smoking policy? Close. It was black armbands and the Vietnam War.

Cristen: Oh.

Caroline: Yeah. So I will say one of the ringleaders was this was like a little girl. I'm sure she was like 13, but this like middle school girl was one of the instigators of this protest.

Cristen: A little Sandy, if you will.

Caroline: A little Sandy. So a handful of students were suspended for wearing black armbands, and their parents sued. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices ruled seven to two that public school students' First Amendment rights do not stop at the school doors. Schools can only limit student expression - for example, enforce dress codes - if there is a legitimate concern that the expression will disrupt the learning environment and violate the rights of others. And the thing is, that case is still highly relevant. The ACLU, which represented those students in Iowa in 1969, has relied on the precedent to defend students more recently. Students who've worn anti-abortion armbands. Students who've worn pro-LGBTQ T-shirts. And shirts that are critical of a range of political figures. But the majority decision does say that the case quote “does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing.” So that is another dress code fight for another time.

Cristen: Did I win?

Caroline: Yes!

Cristen: Caroline, That doesn’t sound like a real yes.

Caroline: No, we are millennials, Cristen. We’re all winners here! So, congratulations!

Cristen: Well, I can’t wait to put my participation award in my trophy case.

Caroline: Good!

Cristen: Thanks to ALL of you unladies who have written in to Ask Unladylike!

Caroline: If y’all wanna get in touch with us, you can find us on instagram, facebook and Twitter @unladylikemedia. You can also support Cristen and me by joining our Patreon; you’ll not only get our undying love, you’ll also get new, ad-free bonus episodes every Saturday. Find ‘em over at patreon.com/unladylikemedia.

Cristen: Nora Ritchie is the senior producer of Unladylike. Michele O’Brien is our associate producer. Gianna Palmer is our story editor. Shruti Marathe transcribes our tape. Our music is by Flamingo Shadow, Amit May Cohen and Sarah Tudzin. Mixing is by Andi Kristins. Sound design and additional music is by Casey Holford and Andi Kristins. Executive producers are Peter Clowney, Daisy Rosario and Unladylike Media.

Caroline: This podcast was created by your hosts, Caroline Ervin

Cristen: And Cristen Conger of Unladylike Media.

Caroline: Next week...

Alexandra Brodsky: For me, nonconsensual condom removal is sort of the- a really common form of sexual violence that is always going to happen in the context of otherwise or originally consensual sex. And as a result was so under-discussed, and the law wasn't really designed to address it.

Caroline: We’re talking with lawyer and Know Your IX co-founder Alexandra Brodsky about nonconsensual condom removal, aka stealthing. Alexandra takes us through her law school paper that’s helped women in stealthing cases from California to Switzerland - and why she sees civil cases, rather than criminal ones, as better recourse for survivors.

Cristen: You don’t want to miss this episode! Make sure you’re subscribed to Unladylike. Find us in stitcher, spotify, apple podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Caroline: And remember, got a problem?

Cristen: Ask Unladylike!