I think my son might have swine flu.   I have heard that it is no longer recommended to give him Tamiflu so I have a look online to see what I should do next.  So I enter a Kafkaesque world, which feels more like something out of 1984 than the Britain I have come to know and love.  I am directed to a website where I complete an online assessment - the first question wants to know where we live.  Why should I provide that info first?  Surely that should come last, if at all?  Putting in fake location information as our address is NOYB, I find out that he may have it and I am now authorised to get Tamiflu.  There is no advice on what to do instead of using Tamiflu.

So now I look elsewhere on the web, trying to find advice on how to deal with swine flu without using Tamiflu.  Instead I find lots of information about the side effects of Tamiflu but the best advice comes from a mum in Mumsnet - bed rest and Calpol, monitoring them to see if they get worse.  Why couldn't there be some 'official advice' saying this.

Eventually I ring the helpline and there is just a recorded message.  I notice that there is another telephone number for the 'treatment' line so I ring that instead and there is another long recorded message.  I hang up when the disembodied voice tells me that I might be prosecuted for misuse of the system.  Where's a doctor on the end of the phone when you need one?   I can't help but wonder how capital = money infected the process for dealing with this epidemic...

My son tells me that icecream helps a lot too...

So Roman Polanski has finally been arrested for his rape of the 13 year old girl in America, now a woman in her thirties. Once again, the press emphasises his glittering record of filmmaking, providing just a passing comment about the rape itself. Just like Gascoigne, who has admitted beating up his wife but has not been dropped from the public eye, Polanski appears to be able to commit heinous deeds and still be feted. We will know that feminism has truly succeeded when crimes against women turn men into outcasts, rather than ignored if they are famous enough. Does the indifferent response to the aggressive behaviour of famous men like Gascoigne and Polanski reflecta similar indifference to the treatment of 'ordinary women' by 'ordinary men'? Well with one in 6 women experiencing domestic violence at some point in their life, it seems so.

On Monday 5th September, thinkingwomen met in Manchester to hear from Judith Kurutac on the issues of labour and birth in the UK. Judith's key message was that women, pregnant women, need to recognise that they are in control . They are the only ones who know what they want and they need to make sure they get it. Midwives and doctors (and mothers and friends) can advise but we must each make decisions for ourselves. However, there are real problems in achieving this. Women want to get to know the midwives that will be there during labour but there are not enough to go round. Women want midwives to be engaged in the birth (not passive present but 'active') but midwives worry that they will say or do the wrong thing. There has been a disconnect in responsibility where women are expecting the health professionals to tell them what to do rather than listening to their own bodies and telling the professionals what is happening and how to support them. We need to have more confidence in ourselves as active, fit, able, capable women who can get down to the animalistic reality that labour is - the grunting and panting and pushing, the poo, the blood, the fluid. And of course that wonderful moment when your baby sprawls out, arms outstretched, reaching for you, making it all worthwhile. Perhaps we need to have courses like the Haka (select 'Watch the Haka'), the New Zealand Rugby team's warm up dance, where we grunt and moan. Or do yoga, I suppose..! Top tips for Locating your power are: - Have confidence in yourself - Believe that you will get through it (because you will) - Be active, move about - Don't be afraid to ask for what you want (including changing midwives if you don't want the one you've been assigned) - Take each contraction at a time - Try to abstract the painful sensation - imagine it as shapes or colours A good session, heavily populated with pregnant ladies. Let's hope they located some of their power.

Inspired by Jonathon's response to my previous post, I thought I would share more of my anthropology MA. I'm hoping to do my thesis on the techniques people use to rationalise their decisions in morally ambiguous situations e.g. how do people who experiment on animals process their activities so that they feel ok about it. I have several challenges to think about before I settle on finding people to participate in my study. These are as follows: - I do not want to make a judgement myself on what is morally wrong or right. What impartial measure can I use to define when a situation is morally ambiguous (yeah, right, when is anything ever impartial!). I thought I might use Ethical Consumer's assessment of the FTSE 100 and choose companies at the bottom and approach people who work in them (e.g. Tescos). How/What else can I use to justify a morally ambiguous situation outside the context of my own subjectivity? - What are the different areas where people are particularly morally challenged? Military, multinationals (ha ha), WTO/IMF, politics, medicine, urban planners. I know we all are to some degree. - What if no-one wants to talk to me about this in the context of their job? What might incentivise them? Any opinions? Jess

I'm starting an MA in Social Anthropology in September which will hopefully lead onto a PhD. My current preoccupation is with the discontinuity between how our bodies are designed to live and how we actually live. We were designed to live in a hunter-gatherer society and we are forcing our bodies and our emotions to fit into a societal model that is only a few hundred years old. It may take another thousand for our bodies to adapt and the adaptations that are already taking place (e.g. obesity, unhappy daycare/latchkey children) seem only to be negative. There must be a way to take the best of modern life and adapt it to the physiological and emotional needs of our hunter-gatherer instincts.

Women@Work_ A major break through for British Council Pakistan British Council Pakistan wins cash pound 700 sponsorship from APNA Arts UK. Women@work, an exhibition of working women by the British Council Pakistan will be exhibited in Nottingham, UK during the month of March 2005 with the launch event taking place on International Women's Day. The first showing in Nottingham will be followed by a regional and a national tour with educational workshops within the UK. This dual language exhibition, English and Urdu, portrays Pakistani women in non-traditional areas of work and challenges outdated stereotype preconceptions about women's role in Pakistani society and the wider Diaspora. It was designed to increase public awareness of the positive contributions that women make in Pakistan and around the world outside of traditional areas of work. The posters focus specifically on women working in less 'traditionally' female professions, such as, engineers, judges, pilots, taxi drivers, politician's etc. The images demonstrate that women are often in positions of control and authority in their work environments. Similarly, they have line-management responsibility for the work of men as well as women. The posters are attractive and reflect working women of Pakistan background in a real life situation. Apna Arts working in partnership with other UK based arts and educational organizations would like to take the exhibition around schools and community organisations in Nottingham, Birmingham, Manchester and Bradford areas, using the exhibition and an accompanying education pack as a catalyst to improve educational achievements among young British Pakistani children, who have traditionally under achieved. The British Pakistani community as a whole ends up in very low grade jobs and women still are under achieving in education and other progressive activities. These portrayals of women as positive role models will be used to encourage young children in schools as well as their mothers in the community to reach higher goals through improved confidence and new insights into wider possibilities for future employment. Apna Arts are also interested in linking the exhibition with 'Roti, Kapra or Makaan', an education pack being developed for key stages 3 and 4. To accompany the education pack a series of workshops with schools in Nottingham will be held over a period of six weeks. Experienced artists within the UK will be appointed to work with a group of 15-17 year olds in various schools using the working environment as the focus of learning. This is the first ever collaboration between British Council Pakistan, Human Rights Education Programme Pakistan, APNA Arts, the Arts Council of England and Nottingham City Council. The project has been evolved as a strong connecting future project addressing the issues of identity, changing places and achieving mutuality in full spirit. APNA Arts through support from the Arts Council of England and Nottingham City Council have given sterling 700 cash sponsorship towards the re-designing of the project so it is suitable to be shown in the UK. This is the first ever sponsorship British Council Pakistan has got directly from a UK based organisations. The women@work will be available for showing at other venues across the country and APNA Arts will actively promote its availability to regional and national galleries and organisations. Look out for more information on http://www.britishcouncil.org/pakistan

Should our society endorse lap dancing? If you purport to respect women, you don't go to lapdancing clubs because they treat women as sexual objects *only*. And to treat a woman as a sex toy only is not respectful and should not be endorsed by a civilised society. Men who go to lapdancing clubs should be offered counselling because they clearly have a disfunctional relationship with women.

Thinkingwomen in Manchester last night explored who is 21st century woman? Using words as mind joggers, we discussed the different challenges facing women today, from Western and developing world perspectives. The choice of words demonstrate our preoccupations, from water, education, children and business to prostitution, celebrity, frailty and responsibility. Our conversation kept returning to the interconnection of our planet, the impact of our behaviour on each other and the extent to which we are ignoring basic needs. As a society, we are making assumptions and imposing standards that seem distorted, focused less on what is actually happening and what needs to happen and more on what we think should happen. We stifle then under targets don’t seem to deliver what we really need. We celebrated women’s strength, both physical and mental and we wondered why the role models in our society are celebrities, feted for beauty and wealth. We considered whether we are raising our children with the values of equality and fairness that we demand from our adult life. We speculated that the one-dimensional nature of the media, feeding us stories on appearance and gossip, is filling a void left by the reduction of hardship. Is there an anti-intellectualism snobbery that prohibits discussion and entertainment in discussing the more serious issues of our planet’s future or what kind of society we actually want? Is there an expectation of authority or deep knowledge when someone speaks on a matter, rather than just an opinion. Are we too embarrassed to talk? Topics to talk about at future thinkingwomen in Manchester events: - Religion and spirituality and its role in government - Responsibility: to what and to whom? - Women in politics: are we there yet and if not, why not? - Basic needs: what are they and are they being satisfied? - What are our expectations of life? The structure of the sessions will be: an expert in a particular field will give a talk and then there will be a group discussion on the issues raised. Anyone is invited to submit suggestions for topics or experts, including themselves, if there is something they would like to share with the group. Most of all, we aim to have fun while we talk about these issues. It is possible to have a laugh and be serious at the same time! If you would like to know more about the Manchester events, contact jessicasymons@yahoo.com

Here's something to think about: On 19th April, thinkingwomen are asking Should the government regulate nudity in the mainstream press. Dr Petra Boynton, Sex and Relationship psychologist will outline her research into the effect of nudity in the press on men and women followed by a group discussion. We need to consider the parameters of the discussion: - Would it be easier to debate this issue if we focused solely on sexualised nudity i.e. nakedness that is intended to titillate? Where would the boundaries be? - Should we focus just on nudity in advertising (note that Page 3 is not advertising..) - 'Mainstream press' does not include bra and knicker clad models in Triumph adverts on the back of buses, should the debate cover nudity in the public arena, rather than just in mainstream press? Our challenge is to stay sufficiently wide to cover the issue - tits on display - and tangible enough to propose a clear practical framework for managing it/them.

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.