Media comment

Battle for Haditha and the anniversary of the war in Iraq

2008-03-25T07:40:00.000-07:00

There has been much media reporting on Iraq in the last couple of weeks due to the fifth anniversary of the war.

The most striking thing I watched last week was Nick Broomfields film 'Battle for Haditha'. Broomfield has strayed from his old documentary style, where he appears on camera interrogating his subjects and chasing them around. His new dramatised style, seen first in the film 'Ghosts' shows how he has reinvented his film making format. However, his films continue to carry as much impact if not more than his old documentaries such as 'The leader, the driver and the drivers wife'.

'Battle for Haditha' is a striking film that shows the realities of war, a war where inept, young, underprivileged American marines crack under the pressure of war. These men, traumatised by what they have witnessed in Iraq, mentally disturbed and sleep deprived snap after one of their fellow marines is killed by a road side bomb. They proceed to slaughter 24 innocent Iraqis, men, women and children in revenge for the loss of their colleague. The killing is indiscriminate, although the marines insist they thought they were following marine procedure, ultimately they were so scared and furious that they seemed not to care who they killed. Witnesses even testified that the Americans enjoyed the killing, laughing and counting their victims as they went.

What was sad and infuriating about the film, apart from the loss of innocent life, was the way in which the marines, clearly suffering mental trauma, were refused medical help. Even when they asked for it. Apparently it is marine policy that they should receive help after their tour of duty has finished. Instead, they sent them back out with guns, ensuring the massacre that occurred. There is no doubt that there have probably been many other cases similar to Haditha, that we will never know about. The marines try to cover up these incidents, effectively all the soldiers involved in Haditha got away with it.

The film is not inherently bias towards the Iraqis, Broomfield includes the story of the two Iraqis who planted the bomb, setting off the terrible chain of events. They watch the slaughter, terrified and racked with guilt - The bloody cycle of attack, revenge and killing goes on in Iraq still.

The main point of the film, I felt was the struggle between the Americans and Iraqis to win the support of ordinary civilians. A battle which the Americans - and the British - seem to have lost. Five years on and the Iraqis cannot forgive the destruction we have caused them, we have no doubt bred a new generation who justifiably hate the west. We have let civil war loose in Iraq and destroyed their country, it is no wonder we have lost all support from ordinary Iraqis.

Pro-choice protest Cardiff 4th March

2008-03-25T06:40:00.000-07:00

I went along to the Pro-Choice protest in Cardiff this month. I was pleased to see loads of protesters, women of all ages and men protesting against Anne Widdecombe and co. who are trying to rally support for anti-abortion legislation.

They are seeking partly to block ammendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill which aim to make abortion easier for women. These ammendments include: dropping the requirement of two doctors signatures to certify abortion and removing the right of doctors to object to arranging abortions on moral grounds.

If they get their way the legal limit for abortion will also be dropped from 24 weeks to 20. They claim that children born prematurely at 24 weeks are increasingly surviving due to new medical advances and that aborting foetuses at that point is simply murder.

Anne Widdecombe herself says: "If you are born you have full civil rights...it would be a criminal offence to kill you. But just before birth when you are the same person you have no civil rights at all and you can be taken from the womb and destroyed."

And what about women's civil rights? What about the quality of life these premature babies have, many disabled or brain damaged? Widdecombe also ignores the fact that abortions which take place at this late stage account for only 2% of all abortions. These women are usually extremely vulnerable, victims or rape or domestic violence or very young and in denial about their pregnancy. Others need abortion at this stage because severe birth defects become apparent or they did not realise they were pregnant at all. In short, these are the women who most critically need access to abortion. It could be any one of us in that position. If there was no legal abortion option for women they would either be forced to continue an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy or undergo a life threatening illegal abortion.

There really is no choice. Women must be allowed access to safe, legal abortion. Public opinion supports the time limit, medical science have no findings to suggest foetuses at this age can feel pain - one argument anti-abortionists continue to voice. The time limit is set at 24 weeks for a reason.

I heard one man, attending the 'Passion for life' meeting, a christian and opposed to abortion, questioning a pro-choice supporter. She told him, "I prefer to base my opinions on medical fact and rationality, not on abstract ideas. Legislation should be based on fact. Women should have the right to choose." He continued to ask: "What if your mother had chosen to abort you?" she replied, "If it was endangering her health then she should have had the choice to end her pregnancy."

One protester told me: "The Tory's seem much more worried about the people they can't see - the foetuses - than the people they can see - the women already here"

During the peaceful but highly emotionally charged protest Pro-Choice supporters chanted slogans as anti-abortion groups entered the venue. "Our bodies, our lives, a woman's right to choose" they yelled and at elderly religious parties they asserted "keep your rosaries off our ovaries."

People are entitled to their opinion on abortion, and if they are against abortion for whatever reason they do not have to choose it for themselves. But should they be allowed to inflict their minority opinions on all women?

The heart of the issue is that women should have the right to choose. That is what feminists fought long and hard for and women should continue to have control of their bodies, the rights won by women should be safeguarded and are essential to women's liberation.

Here's my video from the protest:

Police admit incompetancies in rape cases

2008-03-04T04:13:00.000-08:00

In the news today, police admit that they are failing rape victims.

They say this is due to the proliferation of rape myths - in other words that women who don't act as they would expect after having been raped are lying - police don't believe rape victims and their investigation of rapes is often substandard.

How a rape case is dealt with in the early stages can greatly effect the outcome, and attitudes like this damage womens possibilities of gaining justice over an attacker.

It is about time police admitted that low rape conviction rates are not just due to jury predjudice and inadequate court processes, it permeates all the way through the justice system, back to the first point of contact - the police.

It goes to show just how far the hatred and mistrust of women runs in society, it's no wonder so many women don't report rape for fear they won't be believed.

At least it has been acknowledged in some small form which helps bring to the fore the issues which affect rape victims. But will the police do something about it? How can they change the attitudes of millions of police officers? This is the underlying issue - public opinion and attitude towards women as constructed by the patriarchal society we are trapped in.

Faludi's The Terror Dream

2008-02-29T07:45:00.002-08:00

I have been reading extracts in G2 from Susan Faludi's new book, The Terror Dream.

In it, Faludi discusses particular myths about femininity which were perpetuated by the media after 9/11.

These myths focus on the insistence of the media to represent men as heroes and women as passive victims to be saved, how the fire fighters' widows were represented and later demonised by the press, and how women supposedly turned their career ambitions into ambitions to be wives and mothers after the attacks.

It seems an interesting analysis, especially since it is such an up to date analysis of how media represent women, and that 9/11 is such a topical, emotional issue anyway.

Although I have yet to read the entire book, I think that it is an important analysis of the ways in which women are still perpetually oppressed and hedged in by stereotypical representations of 'femininity', even today, when feminism is seen by many as unnecessary and redundant.

The realisation that women are badly mis-represented in the media needs to be kept alive, and books like Faludi's help to ensure this negative image of women in the press is exposed.

Prostitution reforms dropped to avoid more prison strikes

2008-02-29T07:45:00.001-08:00

I read yesterday that plans to help rehabilitate prostitutes and remove the term 'common prostitute' from legislation are being scrapped so the government can concentrate on avoiding any more prison worker strikes.

This is evidence yet again that women's rights and protection are low down on the governments list of priorities.

The damage prostitution does to women is one of the biggest social problems society faces along with domestic abuse. Because these issues effect women, thousands of women, the government aren't as bothered to try to find solutions.

While they dither about women are everyday being raped for money, beaten and abused, and foreign women, some just girls, are being trafficked into prostitution.

What would it take for the government to stand up and do something? why are women still, as ever, treated as second class citizens?

All these men killing women, and you say we are not oppressed?

2008-02-27T09:14:00.000-08:00

I have been following the news of the Ipswich prostitute murderer, the 'bus stop killer' and the Sally Anne Bowman case recently.

The sensationalist coverage of these men and the murders have been ridiculous, the media are having a field day rehashing the grisly details. In particular the tabloids jumped on Mark Dixies claim that he raped Bowman after she was killed.

Then I read an article in The Guardian today, highlighting the fact that these men not only had histories of committing sexual attacks in the past which went unpunished, but pointed out that these men are just the tip of the iceberg - unpunished violence against women is rife in the patriarchal society in which we live in.

Why did the women previously abused by these killers not speak out? the article asks.

"Perhaps because they recognised the misogyny that runs through our criminal justice system...Maybe they read about Ian Huntley who was investigated for nine allegations of sexual offences - without a single conviction...Maybe they had read that only 5.3% of rape cases ends in a conviction, that one in five women are abused in childhood, or that one in four women experience domestic violence...that people joke about violence towards women...(that) models are reduced to nothing more than holes to be violated"

This analysis is important. Rather than rehash the gory details and sensationalise the facts, people should be asking these questions.

Why are such men allowed to roam free in society to commit abuse against women again and again? and more importantly, what is wrong with our society that men hate women so much in the first place? why do men feel the need to so brutally display and assert their power over women? And why do we let it happen?

Hilary Clinton - she just can't win

2008-02-26T09:11:00.001-08:00

I have been researching the representation of female politicians for a presentation as part of my masters recently.

What came out of it was mainly that female politicians are either de-feminised or sexualised by the press as a way to alleviate patriarchy's fear of women who transcend the passive Freudian stereotype of femininity and take on positions of power.

When looking at the coverage of Hillary Clinton in the press recently it became apparent that Hilary is stuck in this catch 22 situation.

Described by the media as a ruthless, cold hearted 'machine' intent on winning no matter what she has to do, be it use her husband for leverage, attack Obama or cry to elicit sympathy, Clinton just can't win.

Living up to the ruthless, de-feminised image seems the only way to get ahead, look at Thatchers 'iron lady' image, but when Hillary dared to get emotional and shed a tear, the press were all over it, branding it a calculating attempt at using her feminine wiles to get votes. Clinton was also criticised for transcending her de-feminised image by showing a bit of cleavage - the same fate befell the Home Secretary Margaret Becket last July.

Now, although I may not believe entirely in Clinton's policies or that having a woman in the white house would necessarily improve women's lives (look at Thatchers reign) the point is that women have a much harder time getting into power and being treated as serious politicians, simply because they are women.

Do male politicians face the same scrutiny? Obviously not. This representation serves purely to keep women in their place, asserting that men should be the decision makers in society, not women.

Juno - a positive representation of a woman

2008-02-03T05:23:00.000-08:00

I went to see a pre screening of Juno last night. I was somewhat dubious how the film would play out, although I had read good reviews and seen the trailers.

I was surprised to find the film really funny and uplifting, despite dealing with the serious issue of teenage pregnancy.

What was most impressive was the representation of Juno, the main character, aged 16 and pregnant. Unlike in most Hollywood films where pregnant teens are represented as foolish, airheads and 'sluts', Juno was an extremely smart character, not the dumb cheerleader type. She knows about old music, slasher films and guitars and is intelligent, funny and does not dress as most teens do in Hollywood films - she was not perpetually half-naked and her image was not sexualised (although her best Friend Leah was in some respects).

It was refreshing to see a film asserting that smart, level-headed girls do sometimes get pregnant, that it can happen to anyone, and that it is not necessarily something to be ashamed of or something that will ruin a girls life and reputation forever.

However, the film does not glamorise pregnancy and even dares to broach the subject of abortion - unlike many other films - although the issue was not explored in much depth and treated humorously instead.

The representation of gender in the film was also interesting, on the one hand women were not seen as inherently maternal - Juno's mother abandoned her when she was little and Juno herself does not display the usual angst represented in culture when a woman gives up her baby for adoption.

However, the adoptive mother, Vanessa, unable to have kids, conforms to the stereotype, displaying the 'natural' female trait of being desperate to have a child.

The male characters in the film are also surprising - Juno's father is supportive and reliable and Juno's boyfriend and the baby's father is shy, geeky but totally reliable and in love with Juno.

The adoptive dad-to-be however, Mark, is a traditional male let-down, deciding he is 'not ready to be a father' and also making a pass at heavily pregnant Juno.

Aside from these interesting representations of gender, the main point is that Juno is definitely a for once positive representation of a girl - which you don't often come across in films.

Response to Shriver's analysis of 70's Horror

2008-02-01T09:22:00.000-08:00

Following my blog about the SS Experiment Concentration Camp film I read an article in The Guardian by Lionel Shriver, who watched and attempted to analyse several so called 'video nasties' made 20 years ago.

Although I can see that Shriver is trying to make the point that such films as 'I spit on your grave' and 'Last house on the left' graphically and violently are nothing in comparison to real life footage of war shown on the evening news - I disagreed with her conclusion that: "let me tell you: these films are crap."

Shriver does not look at the films in terms of the cultural context in which they were made and dismisses them as unimportant in film history.

In fact, as I have said before, these films do - albeit perhaps unconciously - reveal society's and men's fears of the 2nd wave feminist movement (as well as highlighting fears of other cultural changes and political issues of the time such as the Vietnam war). These are well known arguments in film theory and valid ones, I think.

For example, the female charcater in 'I spit on your grave', having been gang raped, chooses to fight back (as they would have you believe a 'monstrous' feminist would) and get her bloody revenge. However, the woman is represented not as a victim but becomes monstrous in her revenge, cutting off one of the rapists penis' in the bath after luring him there with promise of sex.

This shows mens unconcious fear of women and feminists at the time, trying to make feminists into some kind of crazy, dangerous man-hating women solely to illegitimise the aims of feminism.

Shriver, meanwhile dismisses this film as a 'sad excuse for cinema', it may well be tasteless and anti feminist - but irrelevant it is not.

Nazi torture of women film re-released after being banned

2008-01-28T09:24:00.000-08:00

A film which graphically depicts the rape and torture of women in a concentration camp has been re-released according to reports last weekend.

There has been controversy over the SS Experiment Love Camp film, originally banned for being a 'Video Nastie' in the 70s, but now judged suitable to be viewed by the BBFC.

MP's have apparently questioned the decision and the general tolerance of violence in media products in society. The film apparently portrays the rape, torture and electrocution of female holocaust victims.

I haven't seen the film, but have seen and studied plenty of so-called 'video nasties' from the 1970s and 1980s. Violence and the portrayal of women as sexualised in their terror have always been a staple of the genre, and always criticised by feminist film theorists for obvious reasons.

However, I do think in that period of film history the independent low budget horror films like 'I spit on your grave' and even less shocking examples like 'Halloween' have a lot to say about culture.

The representation of women in these films highlight unconcious male fears of female sexuality in society. I would argue that these films can be seen as patriarchy's horrified response to the 2nd wave feminist movement and womens quest for sexual autonomy - to have control of their bodies through access to contraception, abortion and childcare.

So these films are useful in that they represent a cultural manifestation of these fears even though they are certainly distastful and anti feminist.

It's strange that people choose to insist such films should remain banned - although I agree they are definietly anti feminist - but not insist on the removal of soft porn which surrounds us in culture everyday. What is more worrying I think is that these harmful representations of women dominate in everything from newspapers, magazines and adverts on billbords to tv commercials, characters on soaps, films and women in music videos.

Wherever we look we are assaulted by half naked, sexualised images of women - hammering home the message to all of society that WOMEN ARE OBJECTS TO BE LOOKED AT AND JUDGED.

Men who use prostitues to be punished - its about time

2008-01-09T08:59:00.000-08:00

Plans are afoot to punish the men who use prostitutes in an attempt to stamp out prostitution.

The proposed plans, similar to those in force in Sweden, in which men who use prostitutes are fined and/or given community service, are a good move I think and a nice change from the 'blame the woman' legacy in Britain when it comes to prostitution.

Women for so many years have been punished for prostituting themselves, there has been no blame or punishment accorded to the men who ashamedly use prostitutes for whatever reason and often without stigma. Infact, many mainstream representations of culture feature young men who go to prositutes as a right of passage, and are clapped on the back by their chauvaunistic friends after emerging from a glamourous brothel or such with a grin on their face.

Consider in contrast the use of the term whore when applied to women. The phrase is banded around applying to any and all women, those who wear too short a skirt on a night out, have been known to have slept with one too many men or dare to talk openly and brazenly about sex.

The representation dates back to Victorian times, when women, often victims of the new capitalist industrialist times, were driven to prostitution as a means of income. Never mind that these desperately poor women, denied access to other work spheres and education due to class and gender had little other choice, 19th C society branded the prostitute as a 'social evil'.

It was thought, thanks largely to the well respected Victorian doctor William Acton, that women were asexual and the respectable middle class housewife only had sex in order to reproduce. Therefore this cast the prostitute as deviant and allowed society to deem prostitutes 'mad' and lock them up for trying to survive the only way they could - by selling themselves.

The deviant prostitute was thought to be luring men into the sordid act, the man blameless. Mens sexual urges were scientifically thought to be natural and unaviodable - thanks again to the wonderful Acton. In other words men were given a full proof excuse for their actions, that they had no control over their sexual urges and it was the evil prostitutes fault for tempting them in the first place. I would argue that men today still use this excuse in a variety of situations - it remains a cultural loop hole - even though we know that men have just as much ability to control themselves as women do.

So, little has changed really since the Victorian era, women who nowadays largely are forced into prostitution for a variety of reasons - none of them nice - poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, are still punished for trying to survive the only way they can whereas men have so far gotten away with it. And I don't buy this 'Diary of a call girl' glamourised version of prostitution - the amount of women who prostitute themselves for fun - if such women exist at all - I'm sure is tiny in comparison to those who feel they have no other choice.

I have long thought it was about time to lay the blame on the men who continue the exploitation of women by using prostitutes. Although the issue is complex - obviously the government needs to help these women - surely stopping the people who use prostitutes would help stop prostitutes being able to work in the first place.

January diets

2008-01-04T07:12:00.000-08:00

It's that time of year again when the Weight Watchers and Special K 'drop a jeans size' adverts start bombarding us, reminding women that we must pay the price for overindulging and start paying out money to get thin (for the benefit of men) again.

Every year it's the same, except for the relatively new culture of the celebrity exercise video which is rapidly taking over, advertised in all supermarkets,
magazines and in ad breaks during Hollyoaks and Coronation Street.

You can't get away from it. The most laughable examples this year include the 'WAGS Workout' video and BB twins Sam and Amanda's 'Samanda The Twins Workout' video. Because obviously we all aspire to look like them.

I was reminded of this agonising period before Christmas had even happened. I was visiting my boyfriend's family in Wales the week before Christmas, and whilst snooping round the kitchen found a card stuck up on the pin board from the slimming club Curves, reminding my boyfriend's mum that she must remember to keep in shape over Xmas.

My mum, who I can always remember having been on a diet (she went to Weight Watchers for years and is now also a member of Curves), often receives these 'friendly' reminders from them which read along the lines of: "we haven't seen you for a while, hope you will drop in soon". In other words stop being lazy and get down here and do some exercise. Never mind that my mum has a highly demanding job from which she sustained serious wrist injuries. Even driving a car is painful for her - let alone doing any exercise - but she still feels guilty about not having gone to the gym for months.

The joke is, even if you aren't "overweight", or are but have the sense not to care, you can't help but start doubting yourself under the pressure of the mass media diet and exercise ploy after Christmas.

Women are easy pickings for the diet and beauty industry, especially at this time of year, making millions out of persuading women they are fat, ugly and worthless and then promising to make them thin and beautiful if they buy their beauty products, join up to their fitness class or diet club, or better still buy so and so's exercise video and do it at home.

This consumerist culture depends on convincing women they are worthless. So why don't we all stop believing we are for once and stop exploiting ourselves by succumbing to this ridiculous pressure to be unachievably thin, beautiful and 'perfect'.

Women struggle to pay off student debt whilst men prosper

2008-01-03T04:40:00.000-08:00

It was reported yesterday in The Guardian that women take five years longer than men do to repay student loans.

Obviously this is largely down to the unfair pay gap between men and women's salaries.

However the report also puts it down to 'women taking time out to look after children'- perpetuating yet again the belief that all women are ready to drop their careers any second to have a baby and become chained to their homes looking after it. More likely this assumption means that they do not get promoted to higher paid jobs because they are judged not as reliable in career terms as men.

Just as I was getting worked up I read Kat Stark's comments, who is a women's officer at the National Union of Student's. She said:

"Women are taking longer to pay off their student loans because they are paid less, not because they are taking time off to have children. Within three years of graduating, over 40% of men are earning over £25,000, compared to just over a quarter of women. The pay gap is not a new problem - the government knew when it introduced the tuition fees that female graduates would end up saddled with debt to a worse extent to men...the government should consider whether they wish to perpetuate this injustice."

Thank god someone is talking sense. Although undoubtedly many women do take time off work to have children, others choose not to. As Stark suggests, the main reason women are paying off debt later, is because they are paid less, full stop. Not because every woman gives up her career to have children, this is a smokescreen to hide the fact that women are paid less than men.

Women fight back against unfair pay, but who really wins?

2008-01-03T02:49:00.001-08:00

On the front page of The Guardian yesterday it was reported that councils face a £2.8 billion bill in back pay to women who have been systematically underpaid in their jobs over the years.

Apparently "no-win-no-fee" lawyers taking on such cases are only causing the cost of the bill to escalate. The case of care worker manager Rosaline Wilson is highlighted in the article.

Rosaline was only paid £6.50 an hour,a measly 50p more than the staff she managed and was awarded £32,000 by the courts when a "no-win-no-fee" lawyer took on her case. The council had offered an out-of-court settlement worth only £13,000.

Whilst she hailed the lawyer, who took £14,000 of her damages, as a hero, unions and authorities warn that such lawyers are threatening to mess up equal pay deals for all other underpaid women.

So who really wins?

Whilst a few women like Rosaline appear to gain some kind of justice back against patriarchal society's legacy of valuing men over women - its the lawyers who really seem to be cashing in.

As such lawyers have realised, undervalued and underpaid women have now become another kind of commodity, one that can be exploited as usual for financial gain but this time under the guise of 'helping women in their struggle for equality.'

Disgusting as that may be, who can really blame women like Rosaline for fighting back against a cultural bias we all know to be unjust?

The sad fact is that the long term prospects in woman's fight for equal pay may be hindered by this "no-win-no-fee" craze.

What will be left for women after the government have had to pay out billions to opportunistic lawyers? And how will it effect women's pay prospects in the future?

Healer or Fraudster?

2007-12-18T07:46:00.000-08:00

I went to interview a Reiki 'master' today for an article I'm planning to write about the health and relaxation benefits of the treatment.

Elaine, an OAP who has been practising Reiki for 12 years, has a full list of clients and pupils and does an immense amount of charity work. She even teaches Reiki to people all over the world - she is going to Bosnia for the third time in January to spread the Reiki message.

However, I cannot help feeling dubious as I arrive in her cluttered, homely living room, stuffed with shelves of books and lacking in a TV. I settle myself on the sofa.

I spend almost an hour listening to her incredible stories of miraculous healing - and I mean that in the 'that's impossible' sense.

First, Elaine tells me about how she sent long distance healing to a woman in hospital with peritonitis whose organs had shut down. Three days later she was home and fully recovered - Elaine swears it was down to the Reiki "what else could it have been?" she says.

Another boy she gave long distance healing to had an 9lb cancerous tumor removed from his chest and after the operation needed no pain relief at all due to the Reiki. Elaine says : "he just knew it was the Reiki we were sending him that cured him."

Elaine has also healed a man who had a hip replacement and was able to walk again after 6 weeks instead of 3 months thanks to Reiki, and practices it on a 73 yr old man with prostate cancer who apparently cannot cope without it. The man is in agony and his wife drives him the hour long distance for the sessions each week.

Elaine tells me she also performs Reiki on a breast cancer patients chemotherapy before it is injected into her.

Now, I'm not a believer in things like this, in spiritual healing, ghosts, acupuncture or even God.

I have an aunt receiving chemotherapy and herceptin treatment for breast cancer at the moment, she is ill with side effects and is having daily immune boosting injections to keep her out of hospital over Christmas. She was told by another cancer patient that Reiki was useful in dealing with the symptoms.
When she told me this it made me angry to think that people are making money out of others desperation and hope in the face of serious illnesses.

Elaine herself claims to have been told that she needed a kidney transplant in 1976. She still has not had the operation and has taken herself off of all the medication thanks to Reiki.

I ask Elaine about the scientific criticisms of Reiki and suggest that any benefits are down to a placebo effect. "Does it matter?," she replies "I don't think it is a placebo effect anyway, but does it matter? if it works don't knock it"

Well actually, yes, it does matter. I voice my concerns to Elaine that people may turn to Reiki in favour of proper medical treatment, and isn't this dangerous?

"I have never told anyone to stop medical treatment," Elaine tells me.

Hmmm, I am even more dubious now and maybe Elaine can tell as she then offers me a trial. Curious, I agree and hoist myself up onto her healing couch. "Now, you may not feel anything, but it doesn't mean it hasn't worked," she tells me before we begin.

I lie there staring at her patterned ceiling for nearly an hour, listening to the soothing music she has put on and smelling the incense she has lit. I wait for something to happen.

My eyes go funny from staring at the ceiling for so long whilst she hovers her hands above my head. Half way through she moves to my feet and grabs hold of my ankles. I bite my tongue to stop myself from laughing.

She then stands up and frantically moves her hovering hands up and down in the air above where I'm lying, shaking what ever it is she imagines is on them, onto the floor. Then, dusting off her hands she tells me we are finished.

I don't quite know what to say. "I can see why people might use it as a relaxation technique" I tell her. Because actually it was quite relaxing lying down for a while and the couch was really comfy.

That's about the only way I'd recommend Reiki, as a relaxation technique. I certainly don't believe, despite Elaine's stories, that people can be miraculously healed of serious illnesses. I think it is immoral and dangerous to pedal these beliefs to seriously sick people looking for cures - and have them pay an arm and a leg to lie on a comfy couch for an hour.

But as Elaine says, 'maybe I just didn't feel it working', or perhaps you really need to believe it's working to fool your mind into believing you've been healed.

What does the judge have to say about rape convictions?

2007-12-05T14:14:00.000-08:00

I went to court today with my MA group to do some more court reporting. We were also able to have a Q&A with one of the judges.

As Iv'e been writing about rape conviction I decided to ask the judge whether he also thought that something needs to be done to improve the rape conviction rates. He replied with "I think it's been blown out of proportion..."

I pressed him on the standard of proof issue, that having to be sure the defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', made it almost impossible for juries to convict rapists.

I said that since rape cases often boil down to the mans word against the womans, how can Juries be expected to convict when there is no way of proving 100% that a woman was raped, even if the Jury believe that they were?

He didn't agree that the standard of proof should be amended in rape cases, saying that then we would then have to change the standard of proof for armed robbery,and so on.

He said he thought that Juries got it right 'most of the time' ('so stop complaining' -he seemed to suggest).

This means that, in the Judges' opinion, nearly 95% of women stand up in court and lie about being raped. Does that sound likely to you?

In the end he atleast agreed that perhaps the jury could be briefed more on the nature of rape cases and victim behaviour, to help deliberate on the verdict.

When are people going to start acknowledging that English law as it stands is inadequate when it comes to rape cases?

Think rape victims are protected in the UK? Think again

2007-12-04T14:20:00.000-08:00

Following on from the stories of rape victims elsewhere in the world, I was pleased to see David Cameron point out very publicly several weeks ago that England and Wales have the lowest rape conviction rate in Europe,standing at only 5.7%.

Although I acknowledge that there are many reasons for this, I belive the main reason is public opinion. Whilst researching an article on domestic violence in Knowle West, Bristol, which happens to be the area with the highest domestic abuse rate in the south west - I interveiwed a domestic abuse response worker, Karen. She told me just how hard it is to convince a jury to belive that you have been raped.

Karen also worked with rape victims as well as domestic abuse victims. She told me how she would take the women through the degrading process of internal examiniations, extensive police questioning and sometimes ID parades.

After going through all that trauma, the woman has to then stand up in court and be cross examined, often being accused of provoking the attack by wearing provocative clothing, being drunk, or even just knowing the perpetrator. These are all things that women have to apolgise for and are made to feel guilty for. They are also things that some members of the public see as evidence that the woman was asking to be attacked.

One survey shows that 33% of the public thought that if a woman wore a short skirt or was drunk then she deserved to be raped. It is no wonder so many women do not report being raped. Would you?

The problem is not all the misguided and stereotypical opinions that preside in culture, rape cases often boil down to the womans word against the mans. The standard of proof a jury must judge the case by is if it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the woman was raped. How can jurys working within this framework be expected to convict rapists? how can you be 100% sure, beyond all reasonable doubt that a man intended to rape a woman when they can plead it was consensual?

The odds are certainly stacked against you, unless you have been attacked by a stranger, were not intoxicated or wearing provoctive clothing and were beaten and bruised - only then does the rapist seem to be convicted. As in the case of Alice Sebold, who writes about her ordeal and the justice system regarding rape in her book Lucky.

Anyone who watched the Channel 4 programme aired last year, Consent, will have seen a powerful example of this 'justice' system at work. I was traumatised myself after seeing the programme, in which a fictional woman was raped by a work collegue. The programme used actors and the fictional trial was played out in a real court with real judges, barristors and jury.

Not suprisingly, the jury did not find the defendant guilty - an example of the outcome of rape cases every day in this country. What sickened me about this programme particularly was watching the jury deliberate over the verdict. Seeing a woman, roughly my age, flippantly suggest that the victim should have been able to fight off the man and was therefore lying about the rape because she was jelous of her colleges promotion at work, was disturbing to say the least.

To think that jurys every day have to make the decision that a woman has lied about being raped - largely because of the framework of the English Law system - makes me realise that we are not much better off than the women locked up in the Middle East.

My first court report

2007-12-04T08:46:00.000-08:00

I went to court today to do some reporting as part of my journalism MA. It was actually a lot more interesting and easier to follow than I thought it would be. Unfortunately my shorthand is not quite up to scratch yet so my notes were abit sketchy! Here's my first court news report:

Two men were jailed for four years today for beating a man to the brink of death with a metal bar.

Tony Chapman, 38, from Andover was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Scott Atkinson, 40, also from Andover, was sentenced to 4 years for conspiracy to rob at Bournemouth Crown Court.

The judge Nigel Lickley said of the two men: “You are both responsible for the terror caused that night which resulted in a man suffering very serious injuries – which he may never recover from.”

Atkinson was found guilty in August of conspiring to rob Lawrence Nolan by breaking into his house in search of drugs. Chapman was found guilty of grievous bodily harm after beating Nolan with a metal weight lifting bar causing him serious brain damage.

The incident happened in February this year. The judge described how both men had been drinking extensively that day and decided to go to Nolan’s flat to steal some drugs, taking with them the metal bar.

Nolan was in bed with his girlfriend that evening when the two men arrived, forcing their way in through the bedroom window.

Chapman then took Nolan into a separate room and savagely beat him whilst Atkinson held Mr Nolan’s girlfriend hostage in the bedroom, seizing her mobile phone.

Mr Lickley told how Chapman believed that Nolan had attacked his nephew in a previous incident - as he was being beaten Nolan was heard to shout: “you’ve got the wrong man.”

Chapman later admitted that he did make a mistake and that Nolan had attempted to protect his nephew from being attacked.

Nolan suffered serious brain damage and blood loss as a result of the attack. He can only communicate through eye movement and remains in hospital as he is unable to even feed himself.

The judge said when sentencing the men: “Mr Nolan will never forget his injuries and is devoid of having any meaningful life…You are both a danger to the public.”

The law that persecutes women

2007-12-03T04:55:00.000-08:00

We have all been shocked and appauled by the 'teddy bear' incident this week, the British woman Gillian Gibbons, who was locked up in Sudan for allowing her pupils to name the class teddy bear Mohammed.

This story, although it ran every day in the news for over the past week, was no where near as severe as several stories of 'crime' and punishment in the Middle East which I also came accross in the news this week regarding women and ridiculous punishments.

I was reading about the case of an Iranian woman,Leila, now 22, who was regularly sold for sex by her parents from the age of nine to provide an income for her family. Later, when Leila married, her husband also sold her for money to up to 15 men a night.As horrific as that may sound, this is apparantly a not uncommon occurance in Iran, using women as commodities and sources of income, something which to us, in the western world is unimaginable.

What really shocked me was that Leila was sentenced to be hung for incest after her brothers confessed to raping her. What price did the brothers pay? they got a flogging. The husband who allowed his wife to be raped each night for money? he was sentenced to five years in jail.

Fortunately Leila was freed with the help of human rights activists, but we can only guess at the amount of women under the Iranian justice system who recieve the same treatment and are not helped in time.

Being punished for being raped? what kind of justice system is that?

Another case in Saudi Arabia in the news last week involved a woman who was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison after being gang raped. The reason being that she was travelling alone in a car with a man to whom she was not related.Due to Saudi Arabia's strict gender laws, once again a woman is punished for being raped.

Why do women earn less than men?

2007-11-09T04:35:00.001-08:00

According to a Guardian article on Wednesday, women graduates earn on average £1,000 less than male graduates and go into lower paid and skilled positions than men generally in the work place.

Don't we already know this? the survey may be based on new figures but it's a reaction against yet another cultural myth prevailing in society, that women and men have equal access to the work sphere.

In actual fact, despite an equal pay act, women do earn less than men on average, and in equivalent jobs. The well used argument that women gendered jobs are just generally lower paid (childcare, nursing) may well have truth to it, but does not account for the fact that women with equal qualifications and working in equal job roles still get paid less than men.

To blame is partly the fact that employees are not aware of this cultural bias, but the people in charge of the pay roles most definitely are so when are we going to do something about it?

As a culture we are fooled by a few mainstream representations of the cold hearted man hating, post feminist woman, who climbs easily up the career chain using both her brains and beauty to beat men into positions that 50 years ago would be unimaginable. This myth is solely based on the high profiles of a few really successful career women and fueled by the post feminist representation of characters such those in Sex and the City. But in reality it is much harder than that.

Women have to work twice as hard as men to get to equivalent positions, there success is subject to all kinds of pitfalls and conditions, women have to look good, be 'feminine' yet still display 'man like' qualities such as rationality and ruthlessness in the work place and they have to put up with the constant assumption that at any minute they are going to get pregnant and therefore take maternity leave and 'naturally' want to stay at home and raise the baby.

Until we as a society realise what is going on and women force the issue out into the open we are going to continue to suffer this ridiculous inequality.It's not only gender either, all sorts of prejudices still exist in the work place and society in general depending on your age, race and sexual orientation but because of the smoke screen that is post feminism, it is now considered ridiculous to claim that women don't have the same basic rights as men. The woman who claims this is considered a fool and laughed at.

What staggers me is that women are not a minority, we are the majority, so why do we not put more pressure on bosses to pay us what we deserve? The same pay as men based on skills, knowledge and experience, not gender

Will YouTube be slammed over school shooting?

2007-11-07T11:18:00.000-08:00

Like many people, I have become obsessed with YouTube. I think everyone agrees how amazing it is that we now have a platform which enables anyone and everyone who wishes to publish their own videos and film online for everyone else to see.

But what happens when people use this platform for their own sinister motives? I have just got home and turning on the tv seen the horrific news about yet another school shooting in Finland. The facts themselves are disturbing enough, and the images emerging of children running from the school and jumping out of windows to escape are particulalry chilling - although also depressingly familiar following news footage of the attacks on Virginia Tech earlier this year and of course the infamous Columbine cctv footage, among others.

What is even more disturbing is the fact that the shooter himself published his intentions on YouTube and used the site to pedal his warped ideologies on 'social darwinism'. Judging by the massive public discussuion after the video of the Virginia Tech shooter was released, I'm sure the issue will now be revisited in the media again, and I'm guessing YouTube will have some questions to answer.

Abortion shock tactics

2007-11-06T09:14:00.000-08:00

I was shocked to see the Dispatches programme about abortion 'What we need to know'. Having been of the opinion that abortion is every woman's right and having little opposing feelings about the process I watched in horror the footage of an aborted fetus being broken up and pulled from the womb. Naively perhaps, I had no idea that this was what the process entailed.

Seeing the broken up tiny feet and rib cage of a 22 week aborted fetus, truly was disturbing, and I'm sure any one would have a hard time condoning abortion after having seen those images. The gory footage didn't stop there either, seeing the younger fetus literally sucked out of the womb with a vacuum type instrument and hearing the doctor describe the process it suddenly occurred to me that this must be an awful job to have.

The programme certainly lived up to the cultural myth that abortion is inherently traumatising for the woman, which it may well be for many, but which I believe is mostly another cultural tool to restrain women and keep them within the private sphere of the home.

The whole reason women campaigned so hard for abortion rights and for contraceptives was to allow all women to take control of their bodies, to give them a choice to enter the public sphere of the work place and not be constrained to the home. I felt the woman's voice was not heard enough in the film.

What the programme also didn't cover was any discussion of what abortions were like before they were legalised, and although they touched on the subject, the more important issue of the programme I felt was the NHS abortion waiting lists. If they weren't so long then people who really needed them would be able to have abortions earlier and avoid the more disturbing invasive abortion procedure of later pregnancies.

Much was made of the fact that legally babies are aborted at 22-24 weeks when technology now allows doctors to 'save' premature babies also born at this age. Not enough was made however, of the moral and medical debates surrounding keeping babies alive this young. '50% of babies born prematurely at this age survive' we are told, and how many of those have serious health problems? how many live a 'normal' life?

Although I'm sure the programme makers are aware of these debates, and I understand that documentaries can't cover all angles of a story, I think that the woman's voice needs to be heard. This is above all else an issue for and about women and women's bodies, hearing male doctors opinions, well informed as they may be, doesn't represent the issue justly. I think the audience want to hear what women have to say, they want to hear women tell their own stories and voice their own opinions about abortion.

Did the programme change my opinion? After a couple of days reflecting on the disturbing images, I realised that no, horrible as it might be, the images were what they were designed to be, shock tactics. I still believe that abortion is every woman's right and I don't like being made to feel guilty about believing in abortion. No doubt many women watching the programme who had had abortions themselves were made to feel this way and not made to feel that they had taken control of their bodies, exercised their legal rights and made the decision that they felt was right for them.

What makes a good journalist?

2007-10-18T05:51:00.000-07:00

Heather Campbell, Editorial Assistant of Marie Claire magazine tells us what makes a good journalist.

"There's a lot of pressure involved in working for such a big magazine," says Heather, 24. "The feature writers are always telling me about difficult interveiws they've had to do and you always have to come up with new ideas for articles."

So what makes a good reporter? "Someone with excellent research skills and good contacts," says Heather. "You need to be able to work to deadlines and always make sure you get your facts straight. A good journalist always has a good ear for a story too."

After completing an English Literature degree at the Uiversity of Kent, Heather started a beauty internship at Marie Claire in 2006.

"I always wanted to work for Marie Claire," she says. "It's aways a good read and there's a good mix of fun stuff in the magazine as well as serious features like the abortion article in the last issue."

After six months Heather became Editorial Assistant of Marie Claire. This involves overseeing and editing articles written in all areas of the magazine, and although she loves the job, she admits that it can be hard work.

"The day to day running of the magazine is very busy," says Heather "especially towards the middle of the month before the issue goes to print."

Heather is quick to point out how tough journalism can be. She earns less than £30,000 annually and says that: "the industry is very hard to get into nad move up the ladder to start earning more money. It's very competitive."

In the future Heather would like to go back to working on the beauty section. "Doing the beauty features and styling is really fun," she says "and you get loads of freebies as well!"