the feminist vox

Lori Drew, a 49 year-old woman (and mother), has finally been indicted in the Megan Meier suicide case. According to the LA Times, she faces “three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress on the girl and one count of conspiracy.” As many of you remember, the authorities in Missouri could not find a statute under which to indict Lori Drew, but now, thankfully, the case has been handed over to federal prosecutors.

I am not a believer in policing internet activity, but I am a believer in preventing harassment, especially the kind that causes severe emotional distress. Lori Drew is a 49 year-old woman who had absolutely no business harassing a young girl on the internet, regardless of her motivation. I’m glad to see that she’s been indicted, and I hope this case becomes an example for future internet harassment cases.

When cases like the Meier suicide don’t get prosecuted, even when we know the identity of the assailant, it sends a message to victims of internet (and in-person) harassment that their pleas for help won’t get any attention when they come forward.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) told Bush his comments on Democrats appeasing terrorists were “bullshit“:

“This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.

“He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out, not me.”

I like that the closer we get to the end of Bush’s reign from hell, the more outspoken and antagonistic our Senators are becoming. We need to see more of this!

Check out the LA Times article here.

In a 4-3 ruling, the justices rule that state marriage laws are unconstitutional.

SAN FRANCISCO — – The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

Finally, some decisive action on this!

Here's a quote from our shitty, shitty Governor, Mr. Schwarzenegger, that makes me feel a little more secure in today's ruling:

"I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

It is no secret that I do not like Gov. Schwarzenegger. My 18th birthday was 2 weeks after the recall election, and I did not vote for him when he was up for reelection. I knew he would never be able to solve the problems he promised he would, and this is one situation where I hate being right.

The people of California (wrongfully, in my opinion) ousted Gov. Davis because of budget and energy problems back in 2003. Granted, it was a little more complicated than a budget crisis and energy shortage, but those were the main issues at the time. And now, shocker of all shockers, Gov. Schwarzenegger has failed to solve the budget crisis.

The Governor’s May revision was released yesterday and California is facing a $17.2 billion deficit, which is over $2 billion more than the original proposal. Instead of raising taxes to repair the budget problems – which, let’s face it, we knew he’d never do because he’s a Republican – Gov. Schwarzenegger has decided to target problems providing aid to children, the elderly, the disabled, low-income families, and immigrants. He has done this at a time when it has been projected that the need for state and government aid will increase during the next budget year. And, the biggest problem of all, his solution is only a temporary fix for the problem. The next person in office will be facing the same problems he is now, only they will be greater because of Gov. Schwarzenegger's reluctance to raise taxes (except for the 1 cent increase he has proposed, which the GOP is adamantly against).

On top of wanting to use lottery money as a temporary fix to the budget, he has proposed that the $828 million from gas taxes be taken away from public transportation and redirected to help with the $17.2 billion deficit. Myself and many other commuters in the state of California rely on public transportation to get work in a safe, cost-efficient, convenient, and green way. By cutting funds from public transportation during a time when gas prices are only going to continue increasing, you are making it impossible for people, like myself, to get to their jobs everyday. When my bus is full and I have to choose between buying groceries or gas for two weeks, I ultimately have to decide between keeping my job or being unemployed.

Personally, I find it ironic that a Governor who uses taxpayer's money to fly back and forth from southern California to Sacramento is impacting commuters by cutting public transportation.

I am extremely upset and I feel very betrayed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. I don’t think I can write about this anymore without resorting to name calling. Combine that with my lack of qualifications to talk about any of this with any real authority, I’ve pasted some quotes below from people who do know what they are talking about.

The Los Angeles Times has a complete list of the budget cuts and who they will/would impact.

From the Sacramento Bee:

The governor's failure is more than just a numbers game. It reflects his – and the state's – refusal to face reality. The public's desire for spending on schools, health care, prisons, welfare, roads and other services is not matched by the voters' willingness to raise taxes.

The result: budget deficits year after year. Those deficits and the borrowing to which they have led mean that we're still paying now for services the state provided five years ago, leaving less money available for the things we need today. And years from now we and future Californians will still be paying – with interest – for the services we're getting today.

The centerpiece of Schwarzenegger's latest budget plan is a proposal to take an advance against future earnings from the sale of lottery tickets. The governor wants to overhaul the state-run gaming operation so that more people play, and more revenue flows to the state from the tickets they buy. Then he wants to get private investors to pay the state $15 billion in exchange for the rights to a portion of those higher proceeds over the next 30 years.

But even if the Legislature accepted Schwarzenegger's lottery proposal, adopted every spending cut the governor proposed and embraced his budget reform plan, the state would still be facing a projected shortfall of about $5 billion in two years. In other words, when the lottery money runs out, the problem is still there.

From The San Francisco Chronicle:

His latest plan is not without severe cuts. While he has abandoned some of his earlier controversial ideas, such as early release of 22,000 prisoners and closing 48 state parks, the new budget still contains cuts totaling $11 billion.

Health and welfare programs were among the hardest hit. The governor has proposed cuts in health care for the poor, recent immigrants and disabled residents.

I sincerely hope that our next Governor is a Democrat not afraid of raising taxes, because this is just not going to work.

Courtesy of the Broadsheet, when being interview by a female reporter, Sen. Obama responded to her question by saying, “Hold on, one second, sweetie.”

This isn’t the first time Sen. Obama has made sexist remarks towards or about women that he’s had to go back and apologize for. Better yet, there’s a video clip of the sexist comment.

Sen. Obama, of course, apologized for the comment in order to avoid any additional negative press. He claimed “sweetie” was a term he used out of habit. Sorry, still not buying it.

Hi Peggy. This is Barack Obama. I’m calling to apologize on two fronts. […]

Second apology is for using the word ’sweetie.’ That’s a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front.

So, where is the video of Sen. Obama calling a man “sweetie?” Right, that’s what I thought, there isn’t one.

I officially hate today. Edwards gives long-awaited endorsement to Obama:

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a move designed to help solidify support for the party’s likely presidential nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.
ADVERTISEMENT

Edwards made a surprise appearance with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as the Illinois senator campaigns in a critical general election battleground state.

The endorsement came a day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in the West Virginia primary. The loss highlighted Obama’s challenge in winning over the “Hillary Democrats” — white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in significant numbers before he exited the race in late January.

Edwards, who received a thunderous ovation when Obama introduced him to a crowd of several thousand, said, “brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats” to defeat McCain. “We are here tonight because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I.”

He said Obama “stands with me” in a fight to cut poverty in half within 10 years.

Edwards also praised Clinton, saying “we are a stronger party” because of her involvement, and “we’re going to have a stronger nominee in the fall because of her work.”

You can praise her all you want, but at the end of the day, you’re just hoping for the VP nod.

I was more than a little shocked to see this article on the front page of CNN:

As the weather warms each spring, women — especially in cities with active sidewalk traffic — once again face catcalls from men. It’s a situation some find unnerving and an invasion of their space, while others ignore it or are even flattered by it.

“I call it street abuse,” said New York filmmaker Maggie Hadleigh-West, 49. “It’s unwanted attention and invasion of space.”

In her 1998 documentary “War Zone,” Hadleigh-West confronted catcallers and filmed their responses. Many of the men literally ran away to avoid talking to her about why they whistled or made a provocative comment. […]

“Being in a public space with a strange man who is being sexually aggressive is potentially dangerous,” Hadleigh-West added.

On the other hand, some women appreciate the attention in certain cases, like Jessica, a 31-year-old health-care educator in Los Angeles who declined to use her last name to protect her privacy.

“Yeah, it’s objectifying and all, but you know, if I walked down the street and didn’t have men looking me up and down and catcalling, I’d think, ‘Boy, I must really be getting old and dumpy,’ ” she said.

This is absolutely disgusting. Is that how you feel better about yourself? BY being verbally assaulted by men? I think it’s a little sad that the state of the world makes women feel flattered when they are being yelled at by strange men simply for existing. Where is your self esteem? Do you really need that much attention to feel good about yourself? I know I’m being a little more than harsh here, but I absolutely hate women like this. Especially when cat calling isn’t as innocent as a man being a jerk and asserting himself on a woman:

“There seems to be some evidence that it increases self-objectification,” said Fairchild, who surveyed 550 women both online and at Rutgers University in 2006 and 2007. The women — who ranged in age from 15 to 64 in the international online component and from 18 to 24 in the Rutgers survey of women from central New Jersey — were asked about their experiences with street harassment.

Catcalling “encourages women to look at themselves as body parts instead of as full, whole, intelligent human beings” and can cause women to fear for their safety, Fairchild says.

“When a man catcalls you, you don’t know if it will end at that point or if it could escalate to assault,” she added.

I’m glad that there is research being done on this - but I’m sad that it’s getting attention only after the article’s author finds some random woman who just lives for the attention cat calling provides her with.

You know, I was totally fine with this article, even the bits including the attention-seeking woman, until I reached the end:

“A lot of men have no idea that women don’t like being talked to in this way,” she said. “It never crosses their mind, and yelling doesn’t educate them. If you yell, they often don’t understand why you are upset and so they take it personally.”

Often, Kearl says, an assertive, clear response can illicit a kinder reaction than one expects.

“A lot of the time, I find guys will just say, ‘Oh, OK, I didn’t realize it made you feel that way. Thanks.’ “

Ok, now, really, as a woman who experiences cat calling because she has to dress up for work, I can honestly say that no matter how you respond to a man making sexual comments about you, they will still take it personally and be even bigger of an asshole about it. I have asked cat callers more than once if they think whistling and making sexual remarks at women is really the way to get their attention, and I’ve either been called a bitch, stupid, or a lesbian because of my return comment.

What is a man’s expectation when he says these things to a woman he doesn’t even know? Does he expect her to fawn over him in appreciation? Does he expect his comments to be appreciated, or does he know they are offensive?

I’m doing my part as a woman to make it clear that we don’t appreciate these comments, but I’m only one woman living in one small city - I can only do so much.

If you’re going to make an endorsement because you’re trying to help a candidate win an election, that’s fine with me. But when you make an endorsement, make it clear why you’re selecting candidate A in favor of candidate B, don’t just simply state that you’re endorsing candidate A.

My favorite part of the endorsement had to be when Nancy Keenan said the following two sentences in the same paragraph:

Further, I believe Sen. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee.

Sen. Obama will be our next president.

It’s nice to know that you aren’t letting your personal beliefs cloud your judgment and make endorsements on behalf of an entire agency. Why didn’t she just say “I like Obama better than Clinton, ne-ner-ne-ner-neeee-ner!” - because that’s what it sounds like.