The Daily Show has some great commentary on the real reasons for McCain’s choice of Palin for VP.

McCain has chosen Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. I’m guessing the republican party is either a. trying to show that they’re not afraid of strong women or b. making sure they have a “history making” ticket as well. Either way, I believe she’s nothing but window dressing. I say this mainly because of her level of experience (or more accurately, inexperience). After all of the talk from McCain about Obama’s inexperience, I can’t figure out any reason why he would choose such an inexperienced running mate other than her being a token. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that a woman has made it to this high a position in the republican party. I just wish she were a powerful woman on the side of other women.

Regardless of why she was chosen, the fact still remains that she’s going to be McCain’s running mate. So, let’s take a look at her record.

• She’s a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life, and is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest.
• She’s a hunter. This may not mean much to some people. However, as a vegan who sees the use and abuse of animals strongly tied into the patriarchy, I feel the fact that she participates in the barbarity of killing sentient beings for enjoyment to be very telling.
• She’s a lifetime member of the NRA
• She believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman
• She’s an advocate of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
• She supports the aerial shooting of wolves as a way to build up herds of moose and caribou and sued the Interior Department for putting polar bears on the endangered species list because it restricts oil and natural gas development.
• She is pro death penalty
• She opposes federal funding for healthcare
• She strongly opposes alternatives to oil and coal

The following article, Elizabeth Grove man spared jail for having sex with 12-year-old is from AdelaideNow. I came across the story when Hoyden About Town talked about it today and I was horrified.

All emphasis is mine.

AN “immature” 24-year-old who continued a sexual relationship even after learning his girlfriend was just 12 years old has narrowly avoided a prison term.

The District Court today suspended Jarrod James Hean’s two-year, 10-month sentence on condition of a two-year good behaviour bond.

Hean, who is now aged 25, of Elizabeth Grove, pleaded guilty to three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and nine counts of breaching his bail conditions.

In sentencing, Judge Wayne Chivell said Hean had met his now-former girlfriend in March 2007.

She was 12 years old at the time, but lied and said she was 16 – Hean, who was 24, lied and said he was 20.

“When you learned she was 12, you continued to have a sexual relationship with her,” Judge Chivell said.

“By that time, you say you were in love with her, and somehow convinced yourself it was appropriate to continue.

“That was immature and irresponsible on your part, but I accept that you were not acting as a predator.”

Judge Chivell said the relationship – Hean’s first – persisted despite authorities warning the couple to stay away from one another.

After he was arrested for unlawful sexual intercourse, Hean saw the girl on nine more occasions – resulting in the breach of bail charges.

Although he faced a maximum of life imprisonment, Judge Chivell said Hean’s crimes were “at the lower end of the scale”.

“Girls and young women need to be protected from their own immaturity and sexual curiousity at that vulnerable age,” he said.

He imposed a 20-month non-parole period, and said there was “good reason” to suspend the sentence.

“You are unlikely to offend again, and the relationship is now over,” he said.

In another article from ABC News Australia the judge is quoted as saying:

Judge Wayne Chivell said it was an unusual case because it was clear the girl was highly sexualised before the pair had met and an enthusiastic participant in the relationship.

It seems lately that I know the law better than most judges out there. The idiocy of the judge’s statements just amazes me. We have laws of consent because children under a certain age can’t mentally comprehend what they’re consenting to. That’s the whole point of statutory rape laws. It doesn’t matter how willing she was, she’s 12 years old which means she was raped. And like was pointed out at Hoyden About Town, the fact that she “was highly sexualised before the pair had met”, most likely means that she had been sexually abused in the past as well.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this kind of thing from judges either. It seems to be a pattern that if a child has been sexually abused in the past, judges view them as “experienced” and take a lenient stance against the attacker. And it seems if the victim is a child of color, they were asking for it regardless of whether or not they had been “sexualized” (ie raped) in the past.

It also really bothers me how both of these articles as well as the people involved in the case keep calling what they had a “relationship”, saying that she was his “girlfriend” and that they “had sex”. No! They didn’t have sex, he raped her. She wasn’t his girlfriend, she was his victim. The only relationship they had was victim/abuser. And someone who repeatedly rapes a 12 year old girl, even after being arrested for it once, is most certainly a predator and absolutely will most likely offend again.

I’ve been looking for contact information for Judge Wayne Chivell so that I can write to him and let him know how I feel about his ruling. So far I’ve come up empty handed. If anyone has this information, please reply and let me know.

I’ve been scouring Flickr a lot lately and after seeing all of the great feminist imagery decided to do a feature here on the blog. I hope you enjoy them and feel free to reply with links to your favorites.

Read the rest of this entry

Read the rest of this entry