Artemis
Belle Vs. Ariel
Artemis, Summer 2008
So I just saw a group on Facebook concerning ‘Disney princesses’.
I am the first to proclaim my undying love for Disney and I have been to Disneyland Paris and cried at the fireworks!
Yet I was surprised to hear that someones favourite was Ariel…. well it was not this that shocked me, simply the reason behind it, being that Ariel is (quote) ‘a rebel’!
This is based on completely unfounded evidence. She gives up her voice, and a very good one at that, for a man. It is her who has to go up on land to be with Eric, there’s no talk of him becoming a merman and getting ’under the sea’ is there?
Belle on the other hand (of Beauty and the Beast fame) has balls - excuse the pun. I would personally put her forward for best Disney princess. She won’t sacrifice her beliefs for the awful Gaston but will sacrifice her freedom so her father can go free at the start. It is the beast who has learned to change by the end of the film and she also sets a good example for young girls in being a book worm and speaking French, and generally not being a pushover!
This is why Belle is the best Disney princess in my eyes.
Let’s make abortion safe
Artemis, Spring 2008
Why abortion continues to be a taboo topic today is an interesting but disturbing question. The underlying cultural and religious implications of having an abortion are intricate and ingrained in both the developed and developing world. We know that a woman will find a way to obtain an abortion if she so desires, irrespective of what a law stipulates. We know that rates of termination remain approximately the same in countries where abortion is legal as in those where it is illegal, thus proving illegality is futile. We know that unsafe abortion – the clue of course is in the title – is the stuff of nightmares; burnt cervixes, uterine ruptures, sepsis, haemorrhage and more besides. We know maternal deaths decrease rapidly once abortion is legalized, not to mention that unsafe abortions necessitate a hospital stay of up to two weeks (if you’re lucky) whilst safe and reliable treatment will incur a two or three day stay.
The focus has to be first and foremost on deeds not words. We hear again and again that every woman should have control over her body but we need to see lives, families and futures being saved.
It is welcome news then that the UN and partner organisations (Marie Stopes, International Planned Parenthood, the DFID and others) are taking the necessary steps towards improving maternal health on the agenda of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Reproductive health and gender equality are included in the eight goals, looking to be achieved by 2015. Work in this area is vital as it will save countless women and families world over. Equally these objectives must be seen through, no matter what political and religious obstacles may obstruct the path. As the UN Secretary General has said ‘We must start now’ and ‘must more than double global development assistance over the next few years.’ Nothing less will do.
Over the next seven years we can also hope to see UK NGO Marie Stopes International stepping in to provide assistance and aid where it is most needed. Diana Thomas, spokesperson for MSI tells me that the 1994 International Conference of Population Development (ICPD) was really the first time the international community decided that family planning was crucial to saving maternal lives. It was agreed that every woman has a right to access such resources and most countries agreed to fund this is some way or another. The MDGs really underlined what had been said at ICPD, formulating precise goals. But in these goals, abortion was sidestepped. The USA, having originally been behind ICPD, now saw any discussion of reproductive health as automatically endorsing abortion. Ironically says Thomas, its allies on these issues are Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea. Last year however abortion was finally recognized as crucial to maternal health, although the current US administration’s disruptive effect has nonetheless been felt.
The Global Gag Rule (GGR) has affected MSI’s work in the past, although ‘we were not hit as badly as other organizations’ says Thomas. Instigated by Reagan, repealed by Clinton but reinstated by Bush, the policy means NGOs cannot receive financial aid for work relating to abortion services. Clearly motivated by religious concerns, such a rule paradoxically helps (or at least does not prevent) illness, infection and death of thousands of women each year worldwide. The fact that many women are raped further undermines such a strategy. Aware that USA funding is restricted however, MSI have learned not to rely on it. When the USA retracted funds in Kenya and Ethiopia for instance, it meant an inevitable closure of facilities. Thankfully MSI and other ministers and local NGOs in developing countries now reject US funding because the restrictions on its uses are so tight. Happy that maternal health and gender equality are finally on the list, MSI nonetheless feels that the goal cannot be achieved by 2015, given that in some sub-Saharan countries maternal health is falling, not improving. When governments have so many problems to deal with, HIV in particular, other issues are placed above maternal health in importance. Their dual lot of being poor and female hinders their options further though and the fact remains that women’s reproductive health is still a ‘political hot potato’ as Thomas says, when ‘to us it’s a no-brainer.’ Then again, look at how the USA wants to restrict the rights of American women to abortion… and we expect it to help the developing world and its women.
The goals may not be able to be achieved by 2015 but they certainly can be furthered with the help of organizations like Marie Stopes, IFPP and the Department for International Development (DFID). The UK is taking a leading role in supporting efforts to meet the needs of the worlds poorest. The DFID has recently revealed its latest programme to invest three million pounds in maternal health, helping those groups that may have had to cut back on reproductive health services in the past. Thankfully we are not following the USA with its poor and purposeful neglect of those most in need of help. Moreover such an overhaul and positive outcome of the MDGs would potentially rescue some 22,000 children from losing their mothers each year. It seems that this is one goal that may not be achieved but we can certainly near it and indeed, we must.
Kate Moss/Tracey Towerblock
Artemis, Winter 2007-2008
I would simply like to express both shock and anger that Kate Moss continues to make ridiculous sums of money following the cocaine incident.
Let’s just review the facts: H&M has exemplified integrity being the only one to actually say they were going to drop her after the ordeal who actually did so.
Miss Moss if she were (as my good friend puts it) Tracy Towerblock, would no longer have her kid. Yet because she is famous she has neither done prison time, community service, nor had to give up her young daughter. Should she be allowed to snort coke in front of her simply because she’s thin, loaded and famous? The answer is yes; this is what our society has come to, because it’s fine as long as you’re pretty and rich, but if you’re a tramp in the street with a drug problem say goodbye to ever having a life or a job, probably ever again! Moss however can continue to make millions out of it.
Rimmel clearly demonstrate total lack of morals, as they, out of all of her sponsors are the ones who specifically target young girls, yet have kept her on.
She ought to give the millions she’s made due to her coke habit to those others who are unfortunate like her to have such an addiction but are not as fortunate as to have it endorsed by Chanel.