Speak up for Gaza

In 60 years of conflict, it is not often that shock reverberates so deeply amongst the international community.

After years of occupation, illegal Israeli settlements, theft of land and vital resources, house demolitions, the construction of an illegal Apartheid wall, the brutal blockade of Gaza it seemed that we had all become subdued by a steady ebb and flow of violence directed against the Palestinians.

Yet this Saturday, Israel launched a deadly attack against the Palestinians of Gaza which can never be forgotten. “Operation Cast Lead” began a deadly assault on a siege-crippled people and has already been declared as the bloodiest day in all sixty years of conflict. The death toll on the first day climbed from 200 deaths and hundreds injured to 360 killed and at least 1,000 injured- the military assault continues for the fourth day with a threat from Israel that the onslaught in Gaza could last for weeks.

Rather than condemning this blatant Israeli brutality, US policy makers seem to weaving webs of utter lies and contradiction- basically giving Israel their implicit support.

Rice, the US Secretary of State declared that:"The United States strongly condemns the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and holds Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza,"

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe also echoed:"The United States understands that Israel needs to take actions to defend itself,"

"In order for the violence to stop, Hamas must stop firing rockets into Israel and agree to respect a sustainable and durable ceasefire."

And Obama? Well, he was 'monitoring' the situation...

All blame was therefore neatly placed on Hamas, as if they had gone round killing the Palestinians themselves.. Now, I'm no huge fan but I'm pretty sure that's not what happened- so WHY isn't the UK and US directly condemning Israel?

Another thing, Johann Hari of the Independent states that Hamas has made diplomatic moves which have either been forgotten or simply ignored:

"Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms."

If our government's have let us down with their pathetic attempts to stop these attacks on Palestinians, then the protesters and demonstrators have really spoken. Across the world, people have taken to the streets chanting protests and showing solidarity for the Palestinian people. Here in Manchester, an emergency protest was called outside the BBC on Oxford Road (Sunday 28^th at 1pm) to object to the attacks on Gaza which was attended by approximately 400 people. Vigils are also being held there for every day that the conflict continues...

Says It All

Sometimes, Cartoons are just amazing....Here I was complaining about how the whole-shoe-meets-Bush and how the journalist should be commended for his honesty and expressing a real opinion for once...then Bendib comes out with this.. enjoy!

A Journalist's Courage? Bush, Shoes and Objective Reporting

In your face!! well,...almost. Whilst the whole shoe-throwing incident was pretty hilarious and will be over-reported in respect to its actual impact, I really hope that Muntadhar Al-Zaidi is gonna be okay. Judging by the treatment that he got in the seconds after the incident (very heavy-handed) its hard to say that he isn't going to be made an example of...Another major thing that has been slightly annoying is people stating that it isn't his place as a journalist to be doing such things...One Blog commentator stated “whatever happened to objective reporting???”

Firstly, if you knew anything about anything (sorry, but this annoys me!)you'd know that most journalists have accepted that there is NO such thing as objective reporting... It's simply not possible as everything a journalist reports (or ignores) is shaped and coloured by the millions of beliefs and perspective which they hold depending on their age, gender, status, race, etc..
And if your really wanted to have objective reporting than all you could report was a random list of confirmed facts (also again I have my doubts about 'facts' and when they happen to exist and when they are conveniently forgotten..) which doesn't exactly make for interesting reading..

Secondly, journalists have every right to express their opinions, after all they are citizens and as Theodre Glasser (1992) remarks: “objective reporting has denied journalists of their citizenship; as disinterested observers, as impartial reporters, journalists are expected to be morally disengaged and politically inactive”. (From Vincent Campbell, Information Age Journalism: Journalism in an International Context. London, Arnold Publishers. 2004, p166-7.)

It's time people accepted that journalists in fact need to be activists and not neutral witnesses to history; that they can express their opinions without having to question their legitimacy. If all journalists were as honest about their views and about what they experienced as Muntadhar, then maybe more people would trust the media and also encourage them to act (rather than question their professionalism) on any injustices they see..

..also another fantastic cartoon by Latuff

3 Billion for Manchester's public transport... No Thanks!

To be quite honest I wasn't surprised by the spectacular defeat of the TIF bid in Manchester... I got my shock a couple of days earlier when we got the ballot papers through the post and I was talking to friends and family during Eid day about it all...
Well, there I was getting on with my life and thinking that the TIF bid was doing really well, talking to some of my more 'active' friends, the whole debate seemed to be pretty settled.. Public transport is particularly shitty and so three billion would be definitely a good thing... all makes perfect sense.

Common sense, I thought would lead the huge amount of people who have to rely the truly crappy public transport to vote YES...well, no it seemed that something else was afoot. Talking to my friends and family about the possibility that public transport would be improved, led to startled questions of whether I was voting Yes... well, duh!

I rely on public transport for day-to-day travel and trust me some of the stories would actually bring tears to your eyes (they certainly did to mine after waiting for hours in the cold and rain only to be told a million uninspiring stories about why a tram/train/bus was delayed/re-routed/cancelled...).

'But why? Don't you know that you would have to pay 1,200 pounds a year if you had a car? I couldn't afford that!'

Firstly, most of these people don't have cars right now as they can't afford them and if they (or I) were ever to get cars, paying the congestion charge seems a small trade-off for our laziness and helping to poison the planet...

Secondly and most worryingly, they actually know what public transport is like. They have waited hours for a bus/tram that never showed up, they get that public transport needs to be better...so WHY are my working class friends and family, who NEED better public transport voting NO?? I just couldn't make sense of it all.

Digging a little deeper, it was obvious that despite the massive campaigns to help educate the public, there was still loads of misunderstanding (if not total ignorance) about the major aspects of the TIF bid. (Despite the reported £34 million the authorities spent on the whole campaign). The main thing that seemed to surprise them was the fact that the congestion charge was part of a bid for a 1.5 billion grant from the central government ... and that Manchester had come up with the Congestion Charge as a way to pay back a further 1.5 billion loan from government as a way to win the money and improve our public transport. A lot of people seem to believe that the congestion charge was concocted simply to make money to be invested in public transport as its own plan... Others just don't trust local councils to be able to improve the public transport and not abuse the power (and money) that they would get their hands on.. Linked into this lack of trust, another major reason that my friends/family voted no was that they saw private transport as the only real solution to escaping abysmal public transport. Following this logic they didn't want another obstacle (such as a congestion charge) in their path to achieving this...

Although I could understand (sort of) their reasons for voting 'No', in reality it didn't make any sense. The amount of people who rely on public transport from working-class backgrounds is huge and will continue to grow in this increasingly fragile economy. So getting better and cheaper public transport is gonna be vital if we still want to work and study. Hoping that cars become cheaper and more affordable instead is a really bad idea...Also, if we are going to reduce emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change, then public transport has to grow and car-use has to stop..There really is no other option.

In hindsight, the reason these messages didn't reach the people who voted 'No' although better public transport is in their interest, is that they we didn't speak to them in their own language. We didn't state the amount of jobs that would be created (a clear numerical figure to challenge the 1,200 the No Campaigners used) and we didn't highlight the fact that that improved public transport was a real possibility whilst cheaper private transport isn't. Had we addressed, or even recognised, these concerns we could have had a real impact on their final decision.

Now, that the votes are in- overall 812,815 (78.8%) voted 'No' whilst only 218,860 (21.2%) voted in favour of the 3 billion- it seems that Manchester's public transport just doesn't need 3 billions.. who knew...

Helping Journalists Report Poverty...Properly.

A certain someone mentioned today that I hadn't put anything up on my blog for a while... god, I hate it when people are right!! :) So, I thought I'd share with you what I got up to today at an event which looked at Reporting Poverty in the UK

One of the most interesting things that was looked at was how poverty is being reported in the media. Recent research shows that basically not a lot of poverty is being reported in the UK and even when it is it's linked in to other 'social problems' such as crime. There is a tendency to 'other' those who struggle with poverty, and report statistics rater than focus on than the very real experience of poverty. The fear is that this kind of reporting creates a distance between those who live in poverty (out there...) and the rest of us who may have had very limited personal experience.

There is also a distinct lack of empathy which supports the notion of a 'deserving poor' who have no one to blame but their own laziness. Quite simply, this isn't accurate and just reflects the journalists limited range of views as well as their white/upper middle-class, sheltered background.

In the current media environment, there is a tendency for journalists to hold certain news as newsworthy and others as simply not interesting. This means that unless some new report or government initiative has just emerged, journalists (and more importantly their editors) just don't have the time/space for a well-written, and important piece on poverty. To tackle this, the third sector needs to play a more active role in setting the agenda and co-ordinating with other charities and organisations to secure this.

Useful things we can do right now:

1. Take time to really listen to and understand the person you're interviewing- realise that trust needs to be built as there is a tendency for the media to flood an area, trash it in the papers and leave that town/city suffering from a bad reputation. This makes people less likely to trust any journalists.

2. Understanding between Media and Third Sector; A practical problem was the lack of understanding between these organisations. For example a lot of charities don't inform media outlets about their events early enough, or provide the right sort of information and a relevant case study. Equally, media outlets don't realise that the charities role is to protect their clients from any potential harm and that they often operate with very limited resources.

3. Language speaks; think carefully about the language that you use in articles about poverty. Don't cover up issues in complex terms and phrases, but also be sensitive about the impact that your work can have on the people directly involved and the perceptions it will create. For example, someone stated that there is no point in talking about fuel poverty, child poverty and social exclusion as separate topics as they are all outcomes/side-effects of plain-old-poverty.

Interesting points to keep in mind:

*Disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty.

*People can be poor in spirit or physically poor. The fact is, physical poverty is likely to lead to spiritual poverty.

*Rural poverty tends to be ignored and marginalised in favour of the stereotype which places poverty in an urban context.

Desi Unity in Salford

Ramadan is now here and as well as a month-long fast from sunrise to sunset, many Muslims will also be looking forward to the Eid celebrations which mark the end this fasting. Whilst this is usually seen as a good reason- and I have to agree!- to gorge oneself with the spicy offerings of the Curry Mile, one women is using it as part of her campaign to bring wider multicultural understanding to the city of Salford.

Jenny Thomas, the leader of the ‘DesiSisters’ campaign is keen to unite ‘Desi’ sisters of Muslim, Sikh and Hindu origin and introduce the wider public to this ‘Desi’ culture. [Desi Culture promotes understanding and embraces people of every colour, creed and all walks of life. It focuses on positivity, the importance of a smile, and the possibilities that can be realised with dedication, empowerment, and strength.]

So, to mark the end of the Ramadan fast DesiSisters will be hosting a combined Eid/Diwali party on the 25^th of October in Eccles Masonic Hall. Open to people of all faiths and beliefs it hopes to further this ‘Desi’ culture of fun and positivity within the community.

DesiSisters encourage women outside South Asian traditions to dress up in saris, experience Henna art, and enter the glamorous world of Bollywood and Bhangra. Creating positive spaces and experiences of Desi or Asian cultures seems to goes a long way in encouraging a “little creative community cohesion, and meaningful positive mutual integration”.

Allowing women to experience new and strange cultures whilst having fun dressing up and dancing, alters the image and perceptions of South Asian culture. It also challenges negative stereotypes which dominate the general public about the supposedly austere and restrictive nature of Asian Culture.

It’s about ‘Putting the Asian into CaucAsian’ claims the self-styled ‘DesiSister’ leader; a real ‘Desification of the Nation’.

For more information see the myspace and website:
http://www.myspace.com/desisisters

http://desisisters.co.uk

Margaret Thatcher, Blackmail and ‘Only 6%?!'

That’s the range of topics you get when you mix conservatives, lefties, a bunch of eco-hippies in debate on public transport!!! I recently attended the lively public meeting in question which was arranged by Manchester’s Climate Forum to discuss the Transport Innovation Fund’s bid to invest 3 billion into Manchester’s public transport whilst ALSO introducing a ‘congestion charge’. It was actually interesting as the panellist represented a genuinely wide range of views and opinions about whether the bid should be accepted and if so, with what qualifications.

Toby Sproll (of United City represented local businesses) kicked off the debate stated that the TIF bid made perfect business sense as the investment into public transport would improve local economy by increasing the efficiency of transport networks.

The congestion charges, he assured, were effective and fairly targeted at peak time traffic (travelling in the morning and leaving the city centre in the evening). Dave Coleman (Clean Air Now) backed Toby adding that congestion charges were an effective way to secure badly needed investment in public transport which would tackle climate change.

The effectiveness of the scheme in tackling climate change was challenged however when a member of the audience highlighted that even with the introduction of congestion charges CO2 levels in Manchester are predicted to fall by only 6%. Is that really enough? 6%? Clearly, it’s better than an increase but 6% is an abysmal change for the investment of 3 BILLION quid.

Roy Wilkes who represented the Campaign for Free Public Transport, urged that this 3 billion be invested in free public transport instead as a more radical measure to combat the real and catastrophic threat of climate change. Public transport, he declared, was still too expensive which was why it still didn’t compete with cars which were simply being entrenched as a transport mode by the congestion charge.

Questions of whether such radical measure could be done were met with cries from the audience to ‘Nationalise! Nationalise!’ and suggestions of buying back what Margaret Thatcher had sold and running public transport for less or free.

As a Manchester Conservative, Rob Adler brought new perspective into the debate stating that the congestion charges are not needed as 1.5 billion is already available to improve public transport in Manchester. He also added that the congestion charge and fining system were unclear and that the stipulation of congestion charges to receive the funds is quite simply ‘blackmail’.

Without the congestion charge, responded Councillor Andrew Fender, Greater Manchester was simply another council competing alongside a lot of others for the money. The congestion charge gives Manchester a realistic chance to achieve more, quicker and over a shorter period of time.

Despite the heated debate, many agreed on the need to improve the bid, making it more transparent and focus more on environmental issues by improving walking and cycling facilities. There were also suggestions of an independent body to monitor the bid and also ensure that money from the congestion charges were invested straight back into Manchester.

Personally, I think that investing into public transport is so vital to reduce the number of cars on the road and to help make public travel a more viable option. However I do think that the 3 billion would go so much further and combat climate change more effectively if the investments were going to public-owned services rather than private companies. This would not only help keep the price of public transport down but would also make the possibility of free public transport realistic in the mid-to-long term future. And that can't be a bad thing!

Ethical Fashion

here's the link for a piece i did a while back on ethical fashion. enjoy.

http://www.student-direct.co.uk/lifestyle/ethical-fashion

60yrs of Injustice : Palestine Lives 2008 Manchester

As Israel celebrates the 60^th anniversary of the formation of its state- which heralded a new age of oppression, exile and apartheid on Palestinian inhabitants- the world must stop and consider the real impact of this Nakba (catastrophe) on Palestinian lives. There needs to be a condemnation of the inhumane and hypocritical denial of Palestinian rights; criticism of US/Western support for a regime which continues to violate widely-accepted international laws.

To do this, it is important to educate ordinary people against biased media coverage which simply ignores Palestinian suffering and creates misinformed and passive citizens.

As Edward Said once wrote:

“Gone from public memory are the destruction of Palestinian society in 1948 and the creation of a dispossessed people; the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza and their military occupation in 1967; the invasion of 1982, with its 17,500 Lebanese and Palestinian dead and the Sabra and Shatila massacres; the continuous assault on Palestinian schools, refugee camps, hospitals, civil institutions of every kind”.[1]

Clearly this is an attempt by the Israeli state to destroy a people and its history, to crush a way of live and to wipe out a nation- in the hope that it would be able to build its own.

Yet these policies have not only failed to demolish Palestine and its resilient people but has also created a sense of disillusionment amongst Israel’s own citizens and 1948 veterans who feel that their moral, egalitarian vision of society have been betrayed.[2] Consequently on a sunny June weekend in Manchester, hundreds of people- of all religious and political beliefs, Palestinian and Israeli- gathered to show their solidarity with the Palestinian people and to celebrate the fact that after 60years of oppression and apartheid the Palestinians and their culture continues not only to live on, but to flourish.

Palestine Lives 2008- which took place over 6^th/7th of June in Manchester’s Albert Square- celebrated the spirit of Palestinian culture, art, music, and history. The event included a lively parade around the city centre, music performers, traditional dabka dancers, stalls and exhibitions. There were also speeches from a wide array of organisations such as Manchester PSC, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition UK and Jews for Justice for Palestinians, amongst many others who gave personal accounts of their struggles against Israeli domination.

---

[1] Edwad Said, “The End Of The Peace Process: Oslo and After”, (Granta Publications: London), p. xv.

[2] See Haim Baram’s “Isreal’s secret fears” (pg28-30) and Martin Bright’s “The great betrayal: how the left and Isreal fell out of love” (pg34-36) in New Statesman: 19 May 2008.

60yrs of Injustice & What the Future Holds...

Palestine Lives 2008 which was organised by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign also held a lecture conference on the Friday by respected scholars, Ilan Pappe and Alan Hart.

The main theme of the lectures was the need to challenge widely-accepted Zionist history and ideology which creates a ‘misinformed, conditioned and even brainwashed public’ in Israel and across the world. By highlighting the daily human rights abuses that Palestinians face, a more active citizenship -which could pressure government into making policies which support the Palestinian cause – would surely emerge. Therefore, the path to Palestinian liberation is the liberation of history which acknowledges Israel’s utter refusal to recognise Palestinian rights to self-government and sovereignty.

Alan Hart, author of “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews”, emphasised the need to question the portrayal of Israel as a ‘victim’ of Arab terrorism whose existence is under threat. As Hart goes onto point out, Israel is in fact the major threat to peace in the region. Ilan Pappe supported this stance stating that Israel is careful about using the rights word and maintaining its victim image which creates a fearful Israeli populace who are willing to accept their leader’s lies. This gap between the representation of Israel in contrast to the reality of politics on the ground needs to be revealed. Pappe uses the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing and apartheid to illustrate this contradiction, as the policy was formulated and documented in government archives in 1967 but was later justified as a ‘reaction’ to Palestinian violence.

The policy of ethnic cleansing was formulated for the occupied territories as an alternative strategy after the mass expulsion of Palestinians that occurred in 1948. However, if you keep a people and their land but control their borders, water, air and security then what you have effectively created is a “Mega-Prison”. If the populace ‘behaves’ and doesn’t resist, then they are granted certain privileges and autonomy within the prison walls. However if there is any opposition then Israel reverts back to high security and holds the people siege as it has done in Gaza. Israel has been able to operate this policy with full Western support and US-backing and without any consideration for the international community.

Yet this won’t and can’t continue indefinitely. There is a wider feeling that there is a gradual change in general public opinion which questions Israel’s policies and justification, both in Israel and within the wider international community. Many are now starting to see beyond the PR-Spin, hot air and lies that the media and Israeli state spew out. They want an end to the injustice of apartheid and demolition of the prison walls of Palestinian occupation.

Relevant Links:

http://www.psc-manchester.org.uk/

http://www.icahd.org/icahdukdev/eng/

http://www.jfjfp.org/

New Year- New Direction

January. A new year and a new start. I finally went for it and decided to go for journalism. It was a tough, personal decision as I still had loads of questions and reservations about the whole field and also whether I could actually do it. But I thought if a bunch of idiots are out there telling the world what to believe, writing the news according to them, why the hell shouldn’t I be? At least the field would be more representative. And in reality that’s what journalism is all about. It’s not about being ‘Objective’. There is no such thing as objective, we all see the world through our own eyes and we give what we see meaning according to our own views and experiences. So… I thought what the hell!! I’ll give it a go!!

Choices Choices Choices!! & Finally Making up my Mind

The next stage.
I went away for about four weeks after I graduated and tried not to think too much about what the hell I was going to do when I got back. When I got back, I went back to work in retail (Probably the worst job in the world- EVER- So bad that in a 50 years time when they remake ‘Worst Jobs in History’ with Tony Robinson, retail will top the list. Trust me on that one.)

I was still not sure what I wanted to do so I looked at jobs for research, local council and government, museum, office stuff and publishing etc etc. I was willing to take anything on as I still wasn’t sure what to do and so was happy to give it a go. In the meantime I got promoted to assistant manager in retail which made me just feel like I would be there forever and ever....

Very little actually happened for about 6 months. I went to interviews, changed my mind, got another interview and changed my mind again, felt like I was getting somewhere and then nothing happened. Six months is a very long time to be waiting..worrying.... Panicing!! If I could tell myself something then that I know now, is that the process makes you realise what’s important to you and once you know that, your sorted!!!

Going through all of that made me realise that I care about political issues and campaigns, writing and research and compassionate people and that I wasn’t willing to go without them in the long run. I also realised that you have to say no sometimes because you know that path takes you away from where you want to get to. It’s hard but knowing what to do and having some sort of direction is a nice feeling. : )

Writing what I know now.....

"Write what you know." That's the advice that i got from one of the few people i know who are in the news and media industry who is still true to their values and also combines journalism with political activism. Seems like good advice to. Makes a lot of sense.

Write what i know..write what i know. Okay. Now, I'm not sure that I can claim to know a tremendous amount about the media industry (using any stretch of the imagination) but since graduating i have been thrown in the deep end and forced myself to learn a hell of lot about it. I have been on placements with newspapers, magazines, written freelance and I even volunteer for a co-operative which tackles issues through research and activism.

But first, let me start at the beginning. After I graduated in 2007 i decided not to go onto further education, so I guess 2008 turned into my year out of to decide. Its been pretty tough so far, lack of direction is probably something that alot of graduates have to deal with as universities don't really seem to prepare students for the harsh, competitive realities of the employment market.
So, I graduated in the summer and joined the big bad world thinking 'damn! I should have had a plan!'

Women under Spotlight: Gender roles and Aggressive policies post-9/11

After reading an article in the Guardian lately (18^th February 2008, ‘9/11 ripped the bandage off US culture’ by Decca Aitkenhead), I have decided to look back on 9/11 and its impact on gender politics. After considering the gender implications of such an event on the roles that women (and men) are expected to play, I am going to examine the impact of this on the national security response to 9/11.

The article by Decca Aitkenhead focused on Susan Faludi’s new book ‘The Terror Dream: What 9/11 Revealed about America’; it states that “No sooner had the Twin Towers fallen than the search began for the heroes of 9/11. But only men seemed eligible. The women who died were ignored; those who survived were encouraged to get back to baking and child-rearing.”[1] In the aftermath of 9/11 clear and distinct gender roles were highlighted, alpha males were cast in the form of heroic firemen who were now the protectors of the helpless widows and working mums who wanted to stay at home.[2] The rise of this misogynist climate was further defined through delusional imaginings of Bush as some sort of ‘American Hero’ and Karen Hughes (the presidential advisor who stepped down to spend more time with her family) as an ‘unselfish’ mother who had made the ‘wise’ decision.[3]

Yet what Susan Faludi’s book is saying isn’t particularly new or even original, it just seems to be the right time for people to accept this somewhat sensitive cultural critique. What IS interesting here is linking up these gender roles that were setup in the direct aftermath of 9/11 and recognizing their serious impact on national security policies. This important link has been debated widely in feminist and Critical Security studies journals such as International Feminist Journal of Politics and International Studies Perspectives. Many feminists such as Iris Marion Young, Meghana Nayak and Ann Tickner have analysed the impact of 9/11 on US identity in relation to race, gender and the ensuing national security policies.

The ‘traditional’ gender roles that emerged post-9/11 of male heroes and helpless females encouraged aggressive national security policies which were essentially built on these gendered ideals. Consequently, the concept of the manly man and ‘masculinist protection’ formed a justification for the security regime and foreign policies that emerged in the US since the 11^th of September 2001.[4] As Iris Marion Young states, viewing issues of security through a gender lens “means seeing how a certain logic of gendered meanings and images helps organize the way people interpret events and circumstances, along with the position for action within them, and sometimes provides rationale for action”.[5]

Hence these gendered roles transfer male protector and subordinate female gender roles to the state as protector and subordinate citizenship.[6] This protective subordination explains how government leaders are able to expand their arbitrary powers, restrict democratic freedom whilst citizens are happy to accept their actions.[7] They feel the need to be protected both from within from internal enemies through constant surveillance and also protected from an external aggressor outside.[8] Thus, conviction in the inherent ‘goodness’ of the government as a masculinist protector has justified the centralizing executive powers at home, wars of domination abroad, and the general slide to an authoritarian security state.[9]

---

[1] 18^th February 2008, ‘9/11 ripped the bandage off US culture’ by Decca Aitkenhead, The Guardian, pg 7.

[2] 18^th February 2008, ‘9/11 ripped the bandage off US culture’ by Decca Aitkenhead, The Guardian, pg 7.

[3] 18^th February 2008, ‘9/11 ripped the bandage off US culture’ by Decca Aitkenhead, The Guardian, pg 8.

[4] Young, Iris Marion., ‘Feminist Reactions to the Contemporary Security Regime'. Hypatia 18, no.1 (Winter 2003):223.

[5] Young, Iris Marion, ‘The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State’, Journal of Women in Culture and Society 29, no.1 (2003):1.

[6] Young, Iris Marion, ‘The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State’, Journal of Women in Culture and Society 29, no.1 (2003):6.

[7] Young, Iris Marion, ‘The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State’, Journal of Women in Culture and Society 29, no.1 (2003):10.

[8] Young, Iris Marion, ‘The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State’, Journal of Women in Culture and Society 29, no.1 (2003):8.

[9] Young, Iris Marion, ‘The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State’, Journal of Women in Culture and Society 29, no.1 (2003):10.

Saying ....Hi...

Hi, this is my first blog..ever!! ...okay so maybe your not excited after seeing millions of other blogs but this is totally BRAND NEW for me. In case you were wondering, this blog is going to be about my journey to political understanding and commitment to activism and journalism... anyway I'm mainly interested in politics, current affairs, ethical issues, women's rights and world cinema. I'm hoping that this will improve my writing skills and help my journalism career..either way I want loads of feedback, and dont worry i take criticism pretty well. HAPPY DAYS!