Battle for Haditha and the anniversary of the war in Iraq

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.