The lack of philosophical identity at the core of our UK government is really starting to damage their rule. Their policies are totally contradictory. On the one hand they campaign against domestic violence, on the other they bomb women and children in another country, on the one hand they sign the Kyoto agreement and run campaigns on how to save the environment, on the other, they endorse the development of new runways and new roads (to "meet demand"). The hypocrisy makes me breathless - who are they to tell us how to behave? Who are they to act on their own interests and try to persuade us that they are doing it on behalf of others? I'm so sick of Tony Blair, David Blunkett, Jack Straw, Peter Mandleson, Ken Livingston - they are all so arrogant and they just don't listen. It's like being back in my father's household! I've spent some time thinking about the alternatives and they are as follows: - we campaign for a referendum on Europe and we circumvent British politics altogether, handing our fate over to the Europeans - we throw our support whole heartedly behind the Greens and try to raise their profile sufficiently to get elected - I leave for Australia (whoops, political regime not much better there) - we appeal to British women, persuade them that it is time that we took charge. Male dominated politics is sooo last century.

I was wondering if I had invented the phrase 'gender loaded' so I had a look online and found a few interesting sites, such as Electric Venom (very relevant to Sophia's blog below), a proposed new word to replace him/her (mafe) - I must start using that! A couple of feminist blogs, red polka dot org and wehavebrains (so they're thinking the same thing over the Atlantic then..) and a rather scary health report (PDF) about how adolescents look for gender loaded activities to help confirm their sexuality (such as binge drinking for men and dieting for women.)

A posting on the Demos blog recently (2nd Dec) got me thinking about gender loaded words. I think 'modest' is gender loaded. For me, it conjures up a 19th century Georgette Heyer heroine who smiles behind her hand. I think for a man to call a woman modest is patronising. Other gender loaded words are pretty, beautiful, stunning (all used for views as well..I wonder why ;) I didn't really challenge the blogger, because I didn't want to offend him (he's a nice fella). I can see now that women are turned off feminism because they don't want to offend men. And men are offended by feminism because they feel threatened by it. Apparently overtly feminist groups actually receive death threats. What are people so scared of? Surely exploring our language and behaviour in the context of gender gives us a greater understanding of ourselves. Where is the harm?

Hello I have a colleague trying to find films (preferably which would be on DVD) which show a strong portrayal of women undertaking leadership. Can anyone think of any? So far all we've thought of is Erin Brokovich; but would prefer cleaner language. Please send ideas to peter@futureconsiderations.com. THANK YOU!!

The Guardian are doing a 'public services consultation'. If you're quick you can put in your five pence worth. Here is mine: The government needs to decree as policy that they will give preference to not-for-profit organisations when considering tender bids for provision of goods and services. Somehow, the need for competition in a market has got confused with the need for profit. Profit oriented companies try to satisfy their shareholders first, not their customers. All excess money is creamed off rather than reinvested. Competition is necessary to ensure that companies do not become complacent and a monopoly certainly breeds contempt. But the incentive for an individual to do well in a company and therefore get promoted and paid a better wage, is sufficient for them to do a good job. They do not need to make a profit to satisfy an external market which is itself subject to the whims of individuals who have nothing to do with the industry itself. The coffee industry is just one of many that have been destroyed by the vagaries of the stock exchange, impoverishing people who are already disadvantaged. We cannot let our public services go the same way. For as long as taxpayers money is paid into the pockets of rich shareholders, the public will be dissatisfied with privatisation. Not-for-profit private sector provision of public services is the third way.

MEPs vote to support stem cell research Stem cells come from embryos, umbilical cords, even baby teeth. Britain allows harvesting of stem cells from 'supernumerary embryos' - ones that are the result of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). We also allow the "creation of human embryos for stem cell procurement". I have this mental picture of scientists circling women with their petri dishes out, waiting to scrape us and our babies to 'harvest' the cells they need to do their experiments. Read Spares by Michael Marshall Smith. A story that takes human farms to its logical conclusion. If there are scientific (and financial) gains to be made from women doing IVF (all those lovely embryos to butcher into stem cell sausages), will women still be encouraged to wait, to try natural methods to get pregnant? Will this affect the decision on whether or not IVF should be offered on the NHS? We must always be vigilant to those who use our pain to profit. Women who want to get pregnant are vulnerable and to offer them a Hobson's choice of one whole live baby in exchange for 10 unborn babies (the 'supernumerary embryos') is trully macchiavellian. Until women reclaim procreation as our domain, until we take control over the decisions being made, we leave our wombs in the hands of people who do not respect them.

Someone asked the csr-chicks mailing list: do we need charities? I don't think charities should be needed in a truly democratic society. People should be committed to looking after everyone in their society and funds should be provided to do that, either through taxation or other clever ways of funding (e.g. disadvantaged people earn money collectively to fund their particular needs). Charity lets the government and the people off the hook, preying on the good will of some and letting others get out of their social responsibilities. It turns the recipients into passive observers rather than active participants in society and often fails to recognise that everyone is equal. It relies too much on the capitalistic view that you must be successful, fit, healthy and wealthy to be happy and anything else is lesser. Surely it is better to value the insights and perspectives of people in all the forms that they are in life rather than trying (and failing) to make everyone the same. Charities that raise money to look for cures to disease may also not have the same rigour and independence as a government review and be subject to the manipulations of business (e.g. I wonder why the cancer charities pay so much towards pharmaceutical research to come up with a drug to treat breast cancer when it is plain that drugs are causing the cancer to begin with and women should stop taking them. But telling women to stop taking drugs doesn't make any money, so instead they come up with a new drug to combat the effects of the old ones..meanwhile people themselves are caught in between. Do the cancer charities have the strength to see through the people advising them?) Oh and don't get me started on the cost of advertising and fundraising...

We forget too easily how far we have come in the past 50 years and how tenuous it really is. As we increase our reliance on a safe environment, we expose ourselves more and more. For example, a caesarean needs experienced doctors and nurses, electricity, sterilised equipment, a safe and clean environment, help and time to recover. Currently 1 in 5 babies are born by caesarean and some say that all babies should be born that way. If our society ever comes under threat and our safe environment disappears, and we have allowed ourselves to lose the ability to give birth and assist births naturally, we really will be in trouble.