Wall Street Broseph humped, defiled the Fearless Girl statue on Wall Street

For International Women’s Day last week, the Wall Street firm State Street Global Advisors paid for a piece of street art, and the piece went over really well. State Street Global Advisors hired the ad agency McCann New York to come up with a piece of art that would go viral and support IWD. McCann hired Kristen Visbal to make a bronze sculpture called Fearless Girl, and she was placed about 15 feet in front of the Wall Street Bull. It makes it seem like Fearless Girl is standing up to and staring down the charging bull. Fearless Girl was an immediate success, and many people want the sculpture to stay right where it is. It speaks to the power of women, the power of female consumers, the need for women to reach the highest echelons of business and Wall Street and more.

So of course it only took a few days for the statue to be defiled by a drunk Wall Street frat bro with rape-face. Alexis Kaloyanides posted this photo and message to her Facebook:

Che tempo che fa

Almost as if out of central casting, some Wall Street finance broseph appeared and started humping the statue while his gross date rape-y friends laughed and cheered him on. He pretended to have sex with the image of a little girl. Douchebags like this are why we need feminism.

[From Facebook]

I hoped that it would only take a day to identify Broseph McDouchebag, but the Facebook photo went viral on Friday and throughout the weekend and I still don’t think the guy has been ID’d. Do I think this dude should be arrested? No. It’s not against the law to grind on a statue of a little girl. But I still hope someone ID’s him and he’s fired from his job. This is appalling.

Photo courtesy of Alexis Kaloyanides’ Facebook. Additional photos of Fearless Girl courtesy of Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

103 Responses to “Wall Street Broseph humped, defiled the Fearless Girl statue on Wall Street”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. SusanneToo says:

    His family must be so proud. Sarcasm.

  2. Sayrah says:

    Yep that’s disgusting but completely predictable. He will be identified and fired for bringing negative press to his company. Let’s find this a-hole.

    • K says:

      He won’t be fired, this is wall st that is how they act. At worst he will get a slap on the wrist but more then likely his boss will laugh and think it was funny.

      This was gross and the fact that is gone viral and he’s publically shamed is the worst thing that’s going to happen to him sadly.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        If there is enough outrage then he will be fired – am sure the billion dollar hedge fund who paid for it will have something to say about this. From what i understand that fund is a pretty big deal on Wall St.

      • Sayrah says:

        If his name and company end up on tmz I’d bet $100 that he gets fired.

      • Ophelia says:

        If it is just a scantily clad statue of a woman (Aphrodite, or of a similar vein), or even Lady Liberty, I think the boss will definitely laugh it off. However, I think that even the stereotypical sleazy jabba the hutt type boss would draw the line on grown men molesting a little girl even if it’s only a statue. Even if it is for show, once the doxx on those men are out, their bosses will want to distance themselves from employees showing signs of agamaltho-pedo-philia, however flimsy.

        And the rich people who fund the statue won’t like it as well. Staying in the good side of fellow rich people vs. Some red shirt employees? I hope those bros grow up a little.

      • K says:

        I hope you are right Sayrah but my experience with these guys on Wall Street is this will just be written off as “locker room” antics it’s sick and it shouldn’t be but that’s their attitude.

        I do hope you are right.

    • Raina says:

      It’s wall street. He’ll get a promotion.

  3. Snowflake says:

    Idiot. Some men never grow up

  4. OhDear says:

    That’s gross on a lot of levels.

    Plus the statute is clearly of an underage girl!

  5. Svea says:

    The perfect representation of the pandemic of misogyny on Wall Street and throughout the US.

  6. Ophelia says:

    I have this talk with colleagues at work. They dismiss it as “having fun”. They argue that thr bros know the girl is not real. In real life, they argue, they won’t do it. They’re not an animal, they know what’s real and what’s for fun.

    I disagree. The thing that stopped them from doing that in real life is not because they know what is fiction from reality, but because they’re worried about consequences. Given half the chance, I don’t think they will pass it up.

    Which is why we see the rise of white supremacists. For a long time they hide in their mother’s basements dreaming of whatever it is they dream not because they know that their dream is fantasy but because they are fearful of the consequences. Now we have Bannon and Trump and the likes of Milo Whatshisface, they’re making themselves known because now they know they will only get a slap on the wrist and an oh-you-naughty-boy-you.

    So don’t give me those bullshit about people knowing what is fiction and what is real. “Oh they are not disrespecting girls and women in real life, it’s just a statue. They are not real mysoginists or pedophiles.” Makes me sick.

    • Nina says:

      It’s gross and frightening that a grown man’s idea of “having fun” involves pretending to forcibly have sex with a little girl in a public area to amuse his friends.

    • Adrien says:

      Someone defended the guy saying people pose like that withMcDonald statues and historical or religious statues all the time. The girl represents feminism so he knows what he is doing and yes it is corny and tacky to fake hump a statue for pictures.

      • Aren says:

        EXACTLY. He’s making fun of feminism, and most males are okay with that, even if they won’t admit it.

      • Va Va Kaboom says:

        You are assuming this guy knows the statue represents feminism. Maybe he did, but since I had no idea this statue existed until this article I’m going to give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t demeaning all women everywhere by taking an inappropriate (and likely drunken) photo with it.

        And there are a multitude of people taking seriously sexually inappropriate photos involving the balls of the bull this little girl statue is facing down. Does that mean every man and woman who took such a photo was secretly into bestiality or saying they’d love to get on their knees for any bull on Wallstreet… yeah no. They thought they were being funny. Lets wait to see who this bro actually is and if there is any evidence he is actually worse than any other over-successful immature boy out there.

      • Erinn says:

        Va Va Kaboom -

        But I doubt you walk by that statue regularly? This statue is located in his work area. If someone put up a statue near where you work – I’m sure you’d know about it before I would. He doesn’t have the luxury of that sort of excuse because you KNOW people have been talking about it a lot where he works.

      • Original T.C. says:

        Yeah honestly it’s only Democrats or progressives who get fired for socially inappropriateness. Remember the Hillary supporter who got fired for making fun of the military widow at Trump’s congressional speech (I think he should have faced consequences but getting fired was too much).

        Yeah this guy is not getting fired. How many affairs have Republican politicians had and all of them were able to keep their careers. The other side just likes to “talk about morals” to get religious votes but they have none.

      • Va Va Kaboom says:

        @Erinn While you bring up a valid point I’m going to stand by my earlier statement. I want to know for a fact that this guy works on Wallstreet and understands the symbolism behind this statue. From what I can tell we are basing all of this on “Alexis Kaloyanides on Facebook” actually knowing anything about this “broseph” and his friends working on Wallstreet. I Googled this woman, who is an architectural designer from Queens, and her opinions on their jobs are unsubstantiated assumptions. She is not necessarily wrong, but I personally need more than that before I vilify anyone.

      • HookedOnCoffee says:

        Yeah, the thing is, I would NEVER hire someone as an employee if I saw a facebook picture of them pretending to hump Ronald McDonald in public, either.

        It is gross and stupid, and unbecoming of an adult. It speaks to character SO much. If I were HR, staring down an idiot like that, I would never put him in a professional workplace. To hell with his resume.

        So, those people have no leg to stand on.

    • Jay (the Canadian one) says:

      They might also try to argue that drawing a picture is not real life and harms no one, but I believe the law says otherwise: correct me if I’m wrong but depiction of pedophilia in cartoon form is still illegal in many countries. Same idea.

      • Ophelia says:

        I heard about raids into known or suspected pedos homes and that these materials are confiscated as additional evidence but not incriminating in and of itself, but that ownership itself is not questioned if the person is not a suspect?

        I’m not sure, but since people are always saying that “fiction not equal fact, let them fantasize they are not hurting anyone,” I am starting to wonder.

      • Bettyrose says:

        But its cause for suspicion, right? Most men wouldn’t even joke about pedophilia because it’s such a sick, ugly topic. This behavior in public indicates an unbelievably strong sense of privilege and entitlement. Even if he’s not an actual predator, surely this calls his character into question?

      • Really? says:

        If you’ve been to that part of town at all, you know nothing exists there except for banks and those that serve the banks. Sure, it’s possible another type of professional in that kind of suit just happened to be in the area and had to “hump” the statue but unlikely. If his bank does find out, he will be fired. Although the men at these banks probably thought it was a cute joke, they don’t want the bad publicity. Even Barclays will fire an employee over a joke email.

    • Shirleygail says:

      Ophelia~My son, living in my basement, is my hero. He came home so we don’t lose our home. He came home when I lost my job and he helped support me whilst I got back on my feet. SHAME on all who think a man living with parents as an adult makes them some kind of second class species of male. He’s not. I get very angry with these unacceptable generalizations Please stop. My son is sensitive enough and doesn’t need folk like you dumping on him because he came home to help his only living parent keep her home. Back off!

    • Nikki says:

      Ophelia, the sad thing to me is that any human being WANTS to violate the representation of a fearless girl child. I hope I’m not being smug or self deluded that NONE of my 3 adult children would find this remotely funny, regardless of consequences or lack thereof. It’s NOT funny at all.

  7. Aims says:

    I feel like I’m living in the twilight zone. It’s acceptable for a racist to be president , it acceptable to act discriminatory against a group of people who practice their religion . Now it’s acceptable for an adult man to have lewd and inappropriate behavior towards a little girl statue . Is this for real ?!?! Has the world lost it’s mind?

  8. Nina says:

    Oh, but wasn’t she “asking for it”? Look at what she’s wearing! After all, young girls shouldn’t be sculpted with such short skirts and set up to stand in public areas where they could be taken advantage of.

    F*ck this douche with a splintery 2×4. I bet he regularly visits Return of Kings, too.

  9. swak says:

    So glad that I have daughters that are teaching their sons to respect all people and not to be douche bags!

  10. embertine says:

    Leaders of the free world, ladies and gentlemen.

  11. minx says:

    I would think he could be found. The pictures are pretty clear.

  12. Radley says:

    What would possess anyone with any common sense to do that? It’s tacky enough to hump any statue but it’s disturbing and disgusting when it’s a statue of a CHILD. I guess that goes to show how pervasive rape culture is and how it’s perpetually normalized.

  13. Nina says:

    The only way I’d forgive his actions would be if he has a rare condition which causes him to hump absolutely every piece of public art he comes across while intoxicated. But seeing as how he only humped the girl and not the bull…

  14. MC2 says:

    I read the fb post & wasn’t there a kid who witnessed this who had just taken a pic with the statue??? There was a crowd of people admiring & talking about the statue when this guy did this and if one was a kid who watched him simulate rape with a child- game changer. He needs to get fired. Find him & lets tweet, call, etc his company like hell. I just got twitter for reasons just like this.

  15. Kiki says:

    Well, he will be called a “pedophile”. Douchebag isn’t cutting it

  16. Adrien says:

    The people who are experts in I.D.- ing this man won’t bother because they are also meninists, MRAs, PUAs, Chaners and gamergaters. If this was some guy who maltreated a puppy, his name would be all over the news by now, his social media accounts hacked. Those guys easily identified the wife and daughter of that BBC South Korean political expert guest whose kids crashed his interview. They were debating if the woman was the nanny or the Mum.

  17. mew says:

    He getting fired?! Hahahahahahahahahaha wake up! That’s what guys do! Bigger the boss, the more they get away with, they love that stuff! He might just get promoted for that! That’s dudes for ya. And because he’s wall street.. He can do it and get away with it.

  18. Jennet says:

    Sadly, I’m not surprised. These types of rape culture happenings go on every minute of the day.

    Seeing the image turns me into an extra angry feminist on a Monday morning.

  19. Ariel says:

    So, I must confess, while in school in our mid 20s, a male friend and I drunkenly and suggestively posed for pictures with religious statues on out catholic campus.
    We were certainly not making political statements, we were just young, drunk, assholes.

    While it seems to us that this asshole was making a statement, a gross statement, perhaps we should not burn him at the stake.
    But yes, I see the misogyny and the culture of misogyny that supports this and it is well, part of the reason 6 of 10 white people voted for trump. They want to keep women from being powerful, by mocking and degrading them.
    But this particular asshole is maybe just a symbol of this problem.
    Maybe losing his job is a bit harsh.
    I wish women would not have sex with this particular man, but someone does and someone will.

  20. aang says:

    This is why I warn my daughter against the white boys who wear Top Siders, khakis, and ties to school and want to major in business. I know it’s a broad brush but seriously I couldn’t handle her with one of those privileged, upwardly mobile brosephs. Thank God my other girl is a lesbian.

    • Nina says:

      Unfortunately, it’s still a straight, white man’s world, and as long as queer women have to interact with assholes like this guy, they aren’t totally free from rape culture and misogyny.

    • Louisa says:

      My son wears khakis to school (and a tie on Fridays) and I can assure you he would be as horrified as any of us here if he saw this. And as his mother, if he ever even thought something like this was amusing, I would be ashamed and feel I had failed miserably as a mother. He just the other stood up to one of the boys in his class who made a sexist joke. He’s 12.
      I do hear what you are saying about frat boy bros generally being private school educated douches, but there are misogynistic –sholes from every walk of life.

    • Dani says:

      My husband is a business major and wears khakis sometimes (much to my displeasure) and I can attest to him being the most amazing man on this planet. Respectful, caring, compassionate. He’s also the father of two girls and would probably rip this dude apart.

  21. LinaLamont says:

    Fired for humping a statue? No. Enough liberties are being taken away right now. Disgusting, stupid, gross, whatever…. but, it’s a statue; not a real girl.

    • marshmellow says:

      A job isn’t a liberty. It’s up to the company whether or not they want to keep an employee. And if said employee does something completely asinine, like simulate raping a little girl in public, the negative publicity could do some serious damage to the company.

    • Angel says:

      +1
      When you take away the right to act stupid to/around symbols you take away the right for ligitimate dissent to/around symbols.

    • hmmm says:

      Liberties? Human *rights* are being taken away. Screw the false equivalence.

      He has the liberty to act like a brain dead troglodyte in public and his employers have the right to fire him for it no matter what their reason.

      • LinaLamont says:

        It’s not a “false equivalence”. Censorship is censorship. Muzzling is muzzling.

      • hmmm says:

        It is, indeed, false equivalence and you’re saying it’s not doesn’t make a difference to logic. A liberty is not a right. Further, no one’s muzzling him. No one’s censoring him. He did it freely, in the street, with people watching and camera rolling. But his workplace has the right to fire him for his ‘free expression’.

        He was performing a symbolic act of degradation in public, frankly, an act of gross indecency And he didn’t do it to the bull, did he? Now he gets to reap the whirlwind. It’s this kind of false equivalence which has allowed hatred to run rampant and become normalised. Because, this act, too, is one of pure hatred.

      • Veronica says:

        Your civil liberties are protected against the GOVERNMENT taking them, not private enterprise. This is an essential aspect of understanding what freedom of speech actually is. It does not protect you from retaliation from an employer or individual. That’s why it is perfectly legal for your employer to fire you for dropping the N-word…or for creating a massive online spectacle because you behave inappropriately in a public setting.

        However, this would be a false equivalence regardless because the American government does not recognize free speech as an unlimited right. There are laws against inciting speech and hate speech because those behaviors have the potential to endanger and infringe upon the rights of other Americans. It is not dichotomous to have a reality in which most people are allowed to express themselves genuinely and face social consequences for it.

      • Izzy says:

        You need to actually READ the First Amendment, Lina. It protects you from action by the GOVERNMENT against your speech. If the rest of the world wants to publicly identify you for acting like a rapey pedo, that is our right, as private citizens. If Pedo-Boy’s employer wants to fire him, that is THEIR right. 1Am has NOTHING to do with it. He has a right to act like a rapey douche, and other private actors INCLUDING HIS EMPLOYER have a right to decide that someone like him should not be associated with them.

      • LinaLamont says:

        OMG! I know the difference between free speech protected under the Constitution and employers’ rights. Don’t you all (those trying to school me in the Constitution) understand the bigger context I’m referring/alluding to?

      • diane says:

        @LinaLamont – I understand what you are trying to say…however
        There are things under law that are not protected by free speech 1st amendment:
        Obscenity.
        Fighting words.
        Defamation (includes libel, slander)
        Child pornography.
        Perjury.
        Blackmail.
        Incitement to imminent lawless action.
        True threats.
        The climate of our country is one of man dominance and there is a reason why people are upset. Its a larger issue than just free speech IMA

      • LinaLamont says:

        @diane
        “There are things under law that are not protected by free speech 1st amendment:
        Obscenity.
        Fighting words.
        Defamation (includes libel, slander)
        Child pornography.
        Perjury.
        Blackmail.
        Incitement to imminent lawless action.
        True threats.
        The climate of our country is one of man dominance and there is a reason why people are upset. Its a larger issue than just free speech IMA.”

        None of which this is. It’s a dangerous, slippery slope when you want to punish every behavior/activity you find offensive. That’s PRECISELY what this current regime seeks to do.

        This is a stupid, drunk, ignorant person doing a stupid, drunk, ignorant thing to an inanimate object. I understand disgust or indignation, but, I find the hysteria over it ridiculous. Everyone can explain and twist & contort as much as they want…it’s being overblown and over-explained.

        I, also, find many of the comments (and commenters, not, necessarily you) disingenuous on a site that, regularly, trashes women based on their looks & life choices and objectifies men. Some of these people have no problem doing this, and, then, screaming “foul” in the next breath.

        I can explain it to you,  but, I can’t comprehend it for you.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        @LinaLamont: By ‘objectifies men’, I hope you’re not talking about online commenters saying they find some adult male celebrity hot. There’s a difference between expressing attraction to some famous stranger and saying you totally would if they were down for it vs. treating someone as an object instead of a human being / dehumanizing an entire group of people. And I feel the same way about someone commenting that some adult woman celebrity is hot. Do you see someone commenting online about how some famous person is gorgeous, charismatic, and totally on their ‘celebrities I’d like to hook up with’ list as the same as somebody pretending to rape the statue of a child?

        I agree that he might not actually be a pedophile or rapist and might have been acting on drunkenness and a desperate need for attention, but misogyny also could have been his motive. I don’t strongly feel like he NEEDS to be fired or really expect him to be (this is ‘Trump’s Murrica’), but I wouldn’t have anything against an employer deciding they don’t want that kind of embarrassing immaturity, stupidity, classlessness, or possible blasé attitude about sex crimes and misogyny representing them either, or feel like it was about rights under attack.

      • Veronica says:

        None of us are confused by the intent of your comments, so there’s really no need to condescend to rest of us. We just don’t agree with the fundamental elements of your argument. Societies have always protected their norms and values by utilizing public chastisement and ostracism. This is not anything new, it’s simply exacerbated in the era of global communication and mass connectivity….which is not a secret to anyone, particularly a young man of working age. How you behave in public has always had the potential to define you negatively.

        This is not a case of the world stripping away his rights – nobody interfered with his actions, after all. What this is the world responding to what is perceived by many to be unacceptable public behavior. Our actions have consequences, regardless of the circumstances. The fact that millions of people walk through that square every day, plenty of them likely drunk and/or high, and manage to go through there without humping a statue with a little girl in front of an audience of adults and children tells you everything you need to know about how much personal choice was involved there. Being drunk and uninhibited is not an excuse for stupidity (at best) or malicious intent (at worst). I’m not going out of my way to get the guy fired, but I could care less if that’s how he winds up.

  22. Mop too says:

    This is one of the reasons I didn’t try to soften my daughter’s inner bitch. It’s a cold world; you need all the power you can get. She’s a nice girl, but she doesn’t take disrespect. I’m proud of her.

    • brincalhona says:

      It’s a shame that females who refuse to be disrespected are made to think they have an ‘inner bitch’. We wouldn’t dream of using a derogatory term for boys who stick up for themselves.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        “It’s a shame that females who refuse to be disrespected are made to think they have an ‘inner bitch’.”
        Either that we’re bitches or, oddly, that we’re oversensitive and need to ‘grow a thicker skin’ for NOT being cool with ourselves or others being disrespected. So many sexists try to use some kind of backward BS ‘remember the days before Political Correctness took over and women (and other marginalized groups of people) were Strong & Assertive enough to put up with whatever anybody wanted to dish out? Hur, Hur, Those were the days.”

  23. HookedonCoffee says:

    In a twisted way, someone should thank him. For demonstrating why so few women work in lucrative, male dominated industries.

    Yes, the bro culture drives wages down in so many ways.

  24. Notthemafia says:

    Reading this thread reminds me of a book I read recently – ‘so you’ve been publicly shamed’ by Jon Ronson. It was a really interesting investigation into the what’s, the why’s and the impact of group shaming with very humanising case studies. A real eye opener for me actually. I’d genuinely recommend it (this is not at all snarky just very pertinent I think). It definitely has made me think more about my actions as part of a group- and whether seeking as part of a group to demonise and annihilate someone is something I want to be part of. Definitely think this guy is an utter doorknob. But should his life be destroyed? I’m not so sure about that.

    • Erinn says:

      To me – he deserves to lose his job if the business he works for has anything like a morality clause – or expectations of their employee’s representing them in a positive manner.

      His life will not be ruined. He will be inconvenienced. He will likely have trouble for a short time – but it’ll all blow over eventually. For him to do something so asinine and so disgusting – there 100% should be some sort of negative outcome for him. If he’s good at what he does, he likely won’t struggle for too long. And honestly – he’s not a child. This is a man who appears to be at least mid-late 20s. I’m 26, almost 27. There’s absolutely no excuse for him to have EVER behaved in this kind of way – alcohol or not.

  25. diane says:

    This makes me so sad….My daughter loves this statue. This is a statue we need for every “person” in this country. I am so tired of people making excuses for what is supposed to be basic human behavior. It is a “statue” yes we all know its not real, but his actions “do mean something” His reaction is a person of power dominating someone not in power. Would it be ok to simulate putting a noose on a statue? or is just simulating sex with a statue ok? NO it is not.
    My 8 year old daughter cried when Trump became president…then she wiped away her tears and said you know what? I will be president! She just ran a coat drive at her school for refugees and got 200 coats for refugee one.
    Below is the story of the artist that created this sculpture. An artist trying to make a difference. A difference for my little girl and everyone’s. People actions do matter……I will no longer be silent on things that do matter. And I’m not being “too sensitive”
    http://www.adweek.com/creativity/the-story-of-the-fearless-girl-from-the-women-at-mccann-who-made-her/

  26. xo says:

    oh, I’m going to ignore that horrendous photograph. the appropriate responses have been made already.

    An aside: Part of me wishes they had cast this statue in a different pose. Holding up a flower to the bull, for instance, would show the strength of innocence. This defiant pose (I know the symbolism is meant to be moving, but it) just screams FOOLISH self-endangerment to me. In my mental imagery, the poor thing is about to be trampled & it’s far from an empowering experience.

  27. BTW, I wanted to add that this whole business about the ability to hack phones/TV sets/”SMART” appliances is a very valid concern because it could also affect children. I’ve already seen horror stories of a$$holes hacking into baby monitors either to spy on babies and/or say obscene things to them. I personally find this more upsetting than this douche’s drunken antics.

  28. Beer&Crumpets says:

    I don’t know how I feel about this, but breaking out the torch and pitchfork is a bit much for me. It’s always a douche move whenever anyone does dumb shit with art.

  29. Ellis says:

    Drunk Douchy McDouchington has probably shaved and dyed his hair blond by now. Maybe this is just your typical Wall Street moral-less cretin, BUT, by now his boss knows who he is, and cover for him or not, they need to have the IT department check Sir Littledick’s computer for child porn. And if the police ever ID him, check his home computer too. Just in case this isn’t just another example of a defective male of the species not knowing how to be a man, but yet another case of alcohol blocking the inhibition receptors of a scumbag who wants to act out a child-rape fantasy. Cover the bases.

  30. Lucy says:

    I don’t even know what to say on the douchebro issue. I’ll just settle with that cute picture of the little boy next to the statue (which is lovely btw).

  31. eeeeetrainnnn says:

    Maybe he could be tracked down if someone could get an ID on who designed his purse.