anythings.org

Rebecca Walker really just wants me to hate her, doesn’t she? I feel like she’s playing an immature game where she pisses off feminists across the globe in a desperate plea for attention and wealth. Here’s a tip: you’ll never be your mother, so just let it go. Alice Walker is a far better writer, and a much more likable person overall. On the bonus side, Alice Walker doesn’t hate feminism and blame it for everything she sees wrong with the world.

After her ridiculous article for the Daily Mail where she blamed feminism for women’s lack of babies, she found a way back into the media spotlight by publishing an article on CNN calling Clinton’s female supporters “reverse-sexists.”

But with a Democratic house divided, now is the time for healing, and this can only happen if Hillary’s staunch female supporters let go of the reverse-sexist ideology that women are inherently better, wiser, and more compassionate leaders.

They will have to acknowledge that sometimes the best woman for the job is actually a man — if it’s the right man. Obama’s vote against the war, marriage to his female mentor, outstanding record on reproductive choice and a host of other progressive issues, and his uncanny ability to inspire people all over the world suggest he’s just that.

It is time to turn the page on myopic gender-based Feminism and concede that while patriarchy is real, so is female greed, dishonesty and corruptibility.

I really thought we’d gotten over this whole thing about women voting for Clinton because she was a woman, and black men and women voting for Obama because he was African American, but apparently Rebecca Walker doesn’t agree with me. While I’m sure some women voted for Clinton because she was a woman and some African Americans voted for Obama because he was, I’m sure the majority of them were motivated by their political views, and not their similarity to their candidate of choice, whether it be race or gender. I really thought the feminist movement came to terms with this awhile ago: people are so shallow and stupid as to vote for the candidate that matches their personal identification, and accusing them of doing so is downright offensive and patronizing.

I didn’t even need to get to the need of the article where she admits to being an Obama supporter before I figured out that she was one. It’s almost like she’s trying to prove to the world just how bad-ass of a feminist she is by saying “see, look at me, I rose above the female greed and voted for the male candidate!”, as if that somehow makes her better than the feminist women who voted for Clinton.

I’m sorry, but where is her feminist solidarity? Does she really think she is so much more superior than the women who voted for Clinton because she didn’t engage in “reverse-sexism?” For a woman who is striving to encourage empowerment of individuals across the lines of race, gender, etc, she really doesn’t think highly of her fellow women.

She accuses women of voting for Clinton simply because of gender, but pens no response to the men who have voted for her, harking back to the stereotype that men are logical thinkers, and women are irrational and emotional. Why is it acceptable to call women out for voting for Clinton, but say nothing to the men who did? Were all women who voted for Clinton motivated by her gender, and the men motivated by her political views and campaign promises? If she’s going to continue playing such an immature game of blaming feminism for society’s problems, maybe she should make the jump and find a way to blame feminism for all the white men and women who voted for McCain, as well as all of the African Americans who were blinded by their race and voted for Obama.

But she won’t. And you know why? Rebecca Walker hates the feminist movement and she hates empowered women. She blames it for everything that was wrong with her childhood, and she blames it for her terrible relationship with her mother. Why not blame it for her ambivalence regarding motherhood, or the way women voted in 2008? One can only imagine what else she’ll find to blame feminism for. Higher clothing prices because we dare to demand non-sweatshop clothing? Global warming because feminism encouraged us to be the women we wanted to be, so we used aerosol hairspray and put a hole in the o-zone layer? Really, Rebecca, let it go.

Hating the feminist movement from the inside does nothing to increase its effectiveness, no matter how you try to mask your hatred of other women and the movement.

And BY THE WAY, there is no such thing as “reverse-sexism.” Sexism is discrimination based on gender, and while more women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis than men, it can cross gender boundaries and create problems for men as well.

Via Feministe.

Missouri lawmakers are finally helping the law catch up with society: as a result of the Megan Meier suicide, lawmakers passed a bill to make cyber-harassment illegal. From the LA Times:

Responding to the suicide of a Missouri teenager who was teased over the Internet, state lawmakers Friday gave final approval to a bill making cyber-harassment illegal.

The measure updates state laws to keep pace with technology by removing the requirement that the communication be written or over the telephone. Supporters say the bill will cover harassment from computers, text messages and other electronic devices.

The measure now goes to Republican Gov. Matt Blunt for his signature. He issued a statement praising lawmakers:

“Social networking sites and technology have opened a new door for criminals and bullies to prey on their victims. These protections ensure that our laws now have the protections and penalties needed to safeguard Missourians from Internet harassment.”

Many of the bill’s provisions came from a gubernatorial task force that studied Internet harassment after reports last fall on details of Megan Meier’s suicide. Police say Megan, 13, hanged herself in 2006 after being deceived on MySpace.

This makes me much happier. While I was glad to see Lori Drew indicted, I think she should be indicted for what she did rather than the only charge someone could find to stick her with. I personally hope she rots in jail, either for cyber-harassment, or 3 counts of whatever it was they figured out could stick.

This is amazing. The women in Kuwait are taking some huge steps towards personal freedom. From Women’s eNews:

If Salwa Al-Jassar wins an election on May 17, she could become one of the first women to win a place in Kuwait’s 50-seat National Assembly.

But the 49-year-old Al-Jassar emphasizes that a woman’s right to run for office–legalized just three years ago–and her ability to do so are two different things.

A standard qualification for any politician in the heavily clannish process, she says, is membership in one of the country’s prominent families.

And for the 28 women running in this election–which will replace a government dissolved by the emir in March–that’s doubly true.

“My family’s support will take care of 70 percent of my campaign since I come from an elite but a traditional family of Kuwait that has the social power,” Al-Jassar said in a recent interview in her office in Hawally as she fixed her black headscarf on her Persian blue shalwar suit. “If a family does not support, then voters’ common argument is why should we support?”

You should definitely read the full story. One bit I found to be interesting was how they connected family support to our presidential election:

“I ask why Mr. Clinton stands beside Hillary Clinton during her speeches,” she says, referring to the presidential candidate. “It is because if you want to appear strong, you have to be strong from within; within your family.”

I think it’s interesting to see how family support plays a role in elections across the globe, and not just here in America where it’s about picture perfect political families.

I wish all 28 women the best of luck in the May 17th elections!

Not shockingly, each of the presidential candidates issued a statement yesterday about the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the gay marriage ban. Even less shocking: all 3 candidates oppose gay marriage. Which, to be honest, is a position I understand for Obama and Clinton because the percentage of people in America who support gay marriage fluctuates to be a little more or a little less than 50%. But nevertheless, here are their statements in the court’s decision.

Sen. Obama:

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

Sen. Clinton:

Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

The only thing positive I found in Clinton’s quote was the bit where she claims that she will work for access to rights on the federal level for gay couples who can’t marry because their states are too conservative. Clinton and Obama’s statements are the reason I can’t consider them “liberal” candidates in this election. I’m disappointed in them both, but I had to get behind the lesser of two evils.

And, the most painful, Sen. McCain:

John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.

My favorite part is the bit where McCain says he doesn’t believe that judges should be making these decisions. But you know, something tells me that if this decision upheld the gay marriage ban, he wouldn’t have made that statement. If the California Supreme Court had ruled that abortion could not be performed in California (which would never happen), he would have issued a statement thanking the judges for making the “right” decision. I’m sorry, but, how is someone running for president when they don’t understand the function of the judicial branch of the government?

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.

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.