Erin Pizzey tho. Whenever I hear a post about “We need feminism because this tumblr feminist got violent anon messages after posting their opinion.” It’s unsurprising that most feminists don’t know of these names, they are hardly in common circulation, but they need to.
Erin Pizzey was the founder of the world’s first modern battered woman shelter. She accomplished something amazing, but over time, she discovered something about the women in the shelter. The majority of them were not actually victims, they were equally violent or even more violent to their partners. Acting upon this discovery, she wrote a book that claimed women were equally capable of domestic violence as men. Think about that. She said women are equal to men about a bad thing. What a faux pas. She received threats of violence, death threats, her dog was killed, and she eventually had to flee the country with a police escort to the airport the threats of death were so bad. She is now very much in favor if equal rights for both genders, and has lost all illusions surrounding feminism, and gives talks about what to do when stuck in violent situations with a female partner and you aren’t believed or can’t get out.
Esther Vilar’s story isn’t as terrible, but still important. She wrote a book that claimed women were not subjugated in most relationships with men, but actually cleverly used these relationships to get what they want, most of the time. She too, received death threats from having a differing opinion, and continues to receive them today.
For a movement supposedly all about empowering women and letting women make their own choices… we seem to have discovered a dirty little secret. Women are only allowed to make their own choices as long as those choices are approved by feminism as a whole? That’s not empowerment, that’s just a re-branding of religion that uses sick promises of a better life to trick people into not only believing, but forcing others to believe - oh no wait, that makes it EXACTLY a re-branding of almost every major religion today.
So no, fuck no. We don’t “need feminism” because someone expressing an unpopular opinion on tumblr got hate mail. Feminism is the last thing we need for that, because feminism might just teach those anons how best to do it.
"I am working with Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) on bipartisan legislation to facilitate the sharing of cyber related information among companies and with the government and to provide protection from liability," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Mother Jones in a statement. “The legislation will…still maintain necessary privacy protections.” NSA’s Alexander threw his weight behind this kind of bill in September: “If we can’t work with industry, if we can’t share information with them, we can’t stop [cyber attacks]” he told the Washington Post.
Privacy advocates aren’t happy to see that the “zombie bill" is returning—it’s been killed and resurrected twice since it was originally introduced by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) in 2011. “This summer has confirmed that any information that goes into the NSA will be shrouded by secrecy and there will be no oversight,” says Michelle Richardson, a legislative counsel with the ACLU. “Since this is a domestic issue, the NSA is more likely to get involved…and companies haven’t provided concrete examples that they even need this legislation, especially when it’s this broad.”
The way CISPA was written earlier this year, it would have given US companies the legal protection to share cyberattack incidents with the government, which could then help companies better defend sensitive information, such as the design for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and US electrical grids. The way the law stands now, cyber attack information is only supposed to be shared in emergencies, otherwise it can be a violation of laws like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Wiretap Act. Tech companies, including Google and Facebook, have quietly supported CISPA in the past—possibly because, according to Snowden, they were already being forced to share user information with the US government, anyway, and CISPA would protect them from lawsuits.
Privacy advocates and many Senate Democrats took issue with the bill’s broad language, which set no limits on what the government could do with the personal information it obtained as long as it fell under the national security umbrella. “CISPA would’ve allowed NSA to get its hands on even more private and sensitive data,” says Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noting that he hasn’t seen the latest draft of the bill so can’t comment on it.
Feinstein’s office told Mother Jones that the new version of the bill will have “tight limitation on what kind of information is shared” and “the goal is to allow and encourage the sharing only of information related to identifying and protecting against cyber threats, and not the communications and commerce of Americans.” She also said that she believes “the lead responsibility within the federal government should be with a civilian department or agency”—not the Department of Defense.
However, Brian Weiss, a spokesman for Feinstein, could not confirm that two of the biggest privacy problems raised in the House version of CISPA—that personally identifiable information would be shared and the NSA could get it—had been written out of the new bill. There is “no final language” yet, he said. Richardson from the ACLU notes that ”some of the Republican’s proposals have been very anti-privacy, and there’s been a pretty big gap between the Senate Republican approach and [Feinstein’s.]” (Chambliss’s office confirmed they were working on the bill, but did not provide any additional details.)
Even if the bill makes it to the floor, it could still be a tough sell—Obama threatened to veto the House version of CISPA earlier this year and almost 400 websites staged an online blackout in protest in April. “I think it will be very difficult to move information-sharing legislation forward given the events of the last several months,” says Richard Bejtlich, the chief security officer at Mandiant, a company that offers cybersecurity services for Fortune 100 companies. He also notes that his firm’s big report on China’s secret-hacking unit was effective without listing personally identifiable information.
"It would have been complicated to pass a bill before the leak and nows it’s even harder," Richardson agrees. "That being said, I think we need to keep a very careful eye on it to make sure a deal isn’t struck in the Senate. Sometimes these things suddenly start moving."