This week, I cornered people on the street, pushed a camera into their faces, and asked them if they’ve ever experienced sex discrimination in their lifetimes. Most of them had at least been called a “sissy” once. Above, D.C.’s men and women tell their tales of low-cut T-shirts, unwelcome sexual fantasy, and one too many Zoolander jokes.

Sexual discrimination in the office has come a long way. Once predictable—spurning male secretaries and sexually harassing female underlings—on-the-job sexism has since tackled more subtle arts, from cutting strategic holes in female bartenders’ uniforms to mocking the diet of male models. A recent hunt for sexism on the streets of D.C. revealed an evolution of sexism, from its golden age to its next frontier.

THE DISTANT PAST.

When Vernon Moore, 74, entered the workforce half a century ago, only women typed. “We, as young people, were told that women did clerical work,” says Moore. “I went to Cardozo Business High School, where they said that typing was for sissies.”

When Moore went out in search of a secretarial position, he found himself surrendering job opportunities to employees traditionally assigned to “sissy” work—women. When Moore did land a clerical job, he was pushed out of sight. “I was not put in an office, as an administrative aide would expect,” he says. “I was assigned to the shops. And in the shop section, you know, you’re basically right in the middle of the paint shop,” he says.

Even the backroom position proved too visible for a black man. “At the end of my year as a temporary employee, they let me go,” he says. “When I did go back [to the shops], there was a white female in that job. So it was definitely discrimination.”

THE RECENT PAST.

Mary Lou Walen, 68, can recall two instances of sexual harassment in her medical career. In the mid-’70s, Walen had been working at “a very large prestigious institution” for four-and-a-half months before the head of the pathology department thought she was ready for a private conference.

The doctor called her into his office at around 5:15, after the rest of the workplace had cleared out for the day. “He sat across from me at the desk and said, ‘First of all, I want you to know that what I’m going to say you’re not going to be able to repeat, because nobody will believe you—you’re a new employee, and I’m the head of the department.’” Walen repeats. “Then he said, ‘I can’t stop thinking about you. I have sex with my wife and I see your face. I think about you all the time.’ And then he propositioned me.” Walen thanked him and immediately left the office. “He didn’t bother me again,” Walen says, likely because she kept up her side of the deal: “I didn’t say anything.”

Years later, Walen experienced some harassment she couldn’t stand to keep quiet. “I got chased around the desk once,” she says. This time, the male higher-up who beckoned Walen into his office got a little bit more physical. “As soon as I got into the office, he said…‘I find you incredibly attractive’—or something like that—‘and I just can’t hold it back anymore,’” says Walen. “He came around the desk with his arms out to grab me and kiss me, and I just started running,” she says. “I said, ‘Doctor!…Don’t! Stop!’ He said, ‘No, I can’t!’”

This time, Walen talked: “I told the CEO. We just laughed,” she says. “There was nothing more to it.”

THE PRESENT.

Women in the booze-pouring profession experience so many advances from across the counter that they can become numbed to harassment from the back of the house. When asked if she’s ever experienced sex discrimination, Chantal, 26, is initially noncommittal. “I think so, but I can’t think of a specific example,” she says. Once she delves a bit in her employment history, however, the anecdotal evidence mounts. “I used to be a bartender,” she recalls.

At the bar, Chantal’s male manager often required some last-minute wardrobe changes for the female staffers. “He would cut my shirts—my T-shirts,” Chantal says, miming a pair of shears tearing into her chest area. Chantal’s girlfriend, Bre, chimes in to fill out the remainder of the uniform, which required no modification to achieve objectification. “You had to wear high heels and short skirts,” Bre reminds her. “Yeah,” Chantal says. “It was a requirement.”

At the bar, lucrative shifts were awarded to competent male employees—and flirtatious female ones. “For guys, it was the guys who could sell the most, the ones who were the good bartenders,” says Chantal. For women? “How much you flirt with the manager.”

THE FUTURE.

Once brazen sexual advances and modifying fellow employees’ clothes go out of style, workplace sexists may have to settle on more outlandish exercises—like ridiculing male models for eating cake. Jason Cooper, 23, and Rabon Hutcherson, 25, may very well be on the cutting edge of sexism. The male models are regularly subjected to the type of sex discrimination usually reserved for women.

There’s the wage gap: “It’s almost a female-driven industry, with the Heidi Klums and the Naomi Campbells,” says Hutcherson. “And in general they’re paid more—a lot more—than the male models.”

There’s the stereotyping: “When you’re a model, your goal is to sell something, whether it’s a product, a look, or a message,” says Cooper. “Most of those products are geared toward females.” Even products geared toward men—like alcohol and cigarettes—often require a female hire. “Sex sells,” says Hutcherson. That leaves Cooper and Hutcherson shilling for “the things that men are stereotypically better at,” says Cooper. In the advertising world, men are good for wearing suits, working out, and grilling.

And there’s the sex-based harassment: “All of my friends that don’t model or act have a real hard time dealing with it,” says Cooper. “It gets old. Dropping a Zoolander line is not funny,” says Cooper. “They’re not the first person to do it; I hear it all the time. If you’re going to be annoying about it, at least be funny and original.” Hutcherson says that ribbing from male friends can border on the obsessive. “If they see you eating a piece of cake, it’s like a news flash,” he says. “Oh he’s eating cake; let’s take a picture of this; what are you doing; you can’t eat that,” he says. “I still do eat cake.”

Yesterday, local cat-calling chronicler Hollaback DC asked for some street-harassment intel: “Have you been harassed on your bike in the DC Metro area?” According to Hollaback, “We have received several stories from individuals who have been harassed by a biker, but have yet to hear from any folks who have been harassed while biking.”

The inquiry was sparked by a recent Guardian piece, titled “What is it about a woman on a bike that attracts such unwelcome attention?” Author Jessica Reed, frustrated by the cat-calls she suffered while biking in skirts, resorting to a program of “dressing head-to-toe in black lycra” while riding the city streets. “And wouldn’t you know?” she reports. “The catcalling ceased immediately, except for that recent time when I had the incredible audacity to go on a bike ride wearing shorts.”

My experience biking in the city has been similar to Reed’s, though the harassment I’ve experienced has been less sartorially-motivated. Usually, just biking while female is enough. And I think I’ve figured out what it is about a woman on a bike that attracts such unwelcome attention.

It’s an easy in. When it comes to picking up women, pick-up artists will tell you that the initial contact is often the hardest part. When your female target is perched atop a big, mobile metal contraption, would-be harassers have an easy way to spark conversation—or harassment. I’d say half the harassers who have targeted me on my bike resort to variations the same line: “Wish I were that seat.” Simple, offensive, effective.

Bikers are a natural outlet for road rage. Bikers—whether preventing the driver’s ability to drift thoughtlessly into the bike lane, or turn right without looking at who they might swipe in the process—are a constant annoyance to drivers. I’ve experienced my share of non-sexual harassment while biking as well—but it’s a short leap from road rage to sexist verbal bashing. See: General outrage at “women drivers” of all vehicles.

People just love fucking with people on bikes. Pedestrians, too, love fucking with bikers. I have a few theories on why this is true. First, it’s relatively effective and low-risk: bikers are close enough to the sidewalk to hear the harassment, but going too fast to bother to start shit. I also suspect that in some circles, biking is regarded as incredibly douchey, and harassing bikers is hilarious. This may explain why, several months ago, a woman leapt onto my boyfriend, laughing maniacally, as he attempted to ride past her. She didn’t seem to want money or sex—just fun.

Bike naturally puts your ass on display. Just sayin.’

As a result, the bike serves as a proxy for the short skirt. As Reed points out, certain wardrobe choices tend to encourage harassers. Even on foot, a woman’s interest in wearing a short skirt becomes a harasser’s invitation—hey, she’s not wearing pants, so she must want me to discuss her vagina! While elevated onto a bike seat, the harasser interprets your interest in using an efficient method of transportation that happens to elevate your butt as free vagina access. Most of the time, it doesn’t matter what the victim is doing—all that matters is that the harasser can find a thread of justification for the cat-call.

So, what is a girl biker to do? Given my history with biking harassment, I was intrigued by the testimony of Lauren Mardirosian, a D.C. resident who launched pro-bike-helmet initiative “Safety is Sexy” in an effort to look sexier while riding. In March, CP’s Tanya Snyder wrote of Mardirosian:

As a recent transplant, she liked flirting with people on bikes, figuring they shared at least that one interest. But she “felt dorky with a helmet on.” Instead of just chucking the helmet, though, she set out to change the reason she felt dorky, launching a “Safety is Sexy” campaign. Her trademark sticker, “You’d Look Hotter in a Helmet,” fits perfectly between the vents on helmets. She says she wanted people to look at someone riding with a helmet and say, “Hey that guy’s hot, he’s wearing a helmet—that’s smart.”

Reed started wearing androgynous clothing to look less sexy while peddling. While Mardirosian took an opposite measure—starting a campaign to make androgynous biking gear seem sexier—I think we can learn something from her tactics. Mardirosian “set out to change the reason she felt dorky.” Instead of lady bikers curbing our own behavior—we like riding and wearing skirts for ourselves, not the harassers—I can’t help but think we have to change attitudes, not wardrobes. I’m not sure how that’s going to happen, but chronicling our bike harassment on Hollaback DC sounds like a good place to start

Photo by mindfrieze

Last month, I wrote a story about a sexual harassment complaint filed against D.C. police photo lab head William “Bill” Gresham. The story speculated on a finer point of the extremely graphic lawsuit filed by former Gresham employee Mary N. Gilkey—an allegation in paragraph 14 that “Defendant Gresham introduced what he called a ‘peter meter’ to the office.”

Gresham and D.C. police declined to comment on my story about what, exactly, a “peter meter” is. Now, the photo lab boss has officially denied that he ever “introduced” one to his office. Last Friday, a response was finally filed in the case on behalf of Gresham and the District of Columbia. The answer to the complaint denies the allegation concerning the “peter meter,” along with the remainder of Gilkey’s allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation. There are a lot of allegations to deny. In her Sept. 24 complaint, Gilkey claimed the harassment spanned 14 years of her employment in the photo lab, and included Gresham commenting on her body while “he licked his tongue and touch[ed] his penis,” Gresham showing her “pictures of two men engaged in a sexual act where one man had his arm up the other man’s ass,” and Gresham hitting her “on the top of her head with a telephone receiver so hard she bled.”

After denying Gilkey’s “allegations of discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation and violation of the common law violation,” the answer to the complaint, filed by Acting Attorney General Peter J. Nickles, requests that the “matter be dismissed.”

In the strangest allegation, the suit accuses photo boss Gresham of having “purchased panties with a MPD insignia and provided them to the females in his office.” In the most violent, the lawsuit alleges Gresham “hit [Gilkey] on the top of her head with a telephone receiver so hard she bled because [Gilkey] made a disapproving face and mouthed disapproving words when she witnessed Defendant Gresham lying to his wife while he spoke to her on the telephone.”

The suit accuses Gresham and the District of Columbia of “sex harassment,” creating a “hostile work environment,” “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” and “retaliation.” The District of Columbia is also accused of “negligent training and supervision.” The suit alleges that “MPD knew about Defendant Gresham’s proclivities as a sexual predator, was informed of Defendant Gresham’s actions towards Plaintiff, and failed to take appropriate remedial actions against Defendant Gresham.” The complaint requests damages for “physical and emotional distress” and asks that Gresham be removed from his post.

Gresham picked up the phone at MPD’s photo lab yesterday. When asked about the case, Gresham said he hadn’t heard anything about the lawsuit. “I have no comment, and don’t know anything about [the allegations],” Gresham said.

Gilkey’s attorney, Ted J. Williams, previously represented MPD employee Tina Hall-Johnson in another sexual harassment case against Gresham and D.C., which the city settled in 2001. When asked about the new case against Gresham, Williams said, “I find it shocking that the Metropolitan Police Department would continue to employ this person, who clearly is a sexual predator and harasser and a wart, knowing what he had done to one employee. Also of concern is they were on notice of the actions of this man, and there is absolutely nothing that we’ve seen to show that they’ve taken any appropriate action.”

According to the complaint, Gresham’s alleged verbal harassment began shortly after Gilkey was hired on as an MPD lab technician in June of 1994. Gresham, Gilkey’s superior, is accused of commenting that Gilkey “had big full breasts” and “walked like she had good pussy.” Gilkey also alleges that Gresham told her “he would give her money if she would permit him to lick her pussy” and that “if he gave her his penis she would be wearing a mattress on her back.” According to the complaint, Gresham made many of these comments while he “licked his tongue” or “while touching his penis. Gresham is also accused of introducing a “peter meter” in the office, a term the complaint does not explain.

The complaint also accuses Gresham of several instances of physical harassment:

While in the dark room, Defendant Gresham would walk behind the Plaintiff and touch her body with his erect penis. Defendant Gresham on one occasion grabbed the Plaintiff’s breast and told the Plaintiff that if she informed anyone he would make it hard for her. Defendant Gresham repeatedly showed Plaintiff pornographic pictures and pictures of nude women on beaches. Plaintiff informed Defendant Gresham over and over that his actions were unwanted and asked him to stop.

While MPD was investigating Gresham in regards to the Hall-Johnson suit, the complaint reports that “Gresham was detailed out of the MPD Photo Lab for approximately one year.” Following the absence, however, the suit states that Gresham returned to work, “where he began his sexual harassment as if he had never left the photo lab.”

After reassuming his post, Gresham is accused of continuing his verbal and physical harassment of Gilkey between the years of 2000 and 2006, including exposing Gilkey’s breast, displaying pornography “where one man had his arm up the other man’s ass,” and constantly telling Gilkey “how good she looked and [that] he would do anything to fuck her.”

The suit claims that Gilkey reported the abuse to supervisors in 1998 and 2003, as well as during the course of the Hall-Johnson investigation. In both ’98 and ‘03, the suit alleges that supervisors “failed to act on Plaintiff’s complaint and did not either investigate Plaintiff’s complaint, refer Plaintiff to the MPD EEO office or restrain Mr. Gresham in any way.”

In response, the suit alleges, the harassment intensified. According to the complaint, Gresham:

created a situation by which Plaintiff’s co-workers would not speak to her or assist her so that she was forced to ask him for assistance. Defendant Gresham would then take advantage of [Gilkey] having to seek assistance from him and would touch her inappropriately or ask her for sex while complying with her request for assistance. He also encouraged Plaintiff’s co-workers to harass her with the ultimate goal of increasing control over Plaintiff and force Plaintiff to have sex with him.

When contacted yesterday, MPD spokesperson Traci Hughes said that the police department “cannot comment on matters that are currently in litigation.”