31st July Place order, am advised I require a residential package because I want tv, phone and broadband. Sign up on promise of 20 mbs speed

Connection date given as 20th Sept, which is ridiculous. 

6th Sept, I call as i have heard nothing. BT have no evidence of my order.

6th Sept, a new order is placed, installation date given as 14th Sept.

12th Sept, I get a call saying high speed broadband cannot be supported at my exchange (THE ADDRESS IS A BUSINESS CENTRE. OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE SAME BUILDING HAVE HIGH SPEED BROADBAND FROM BT)

12TH Sept BT cancel my order and replace it with low speed order connection, and given installation/start date of 23rd september

23rd Sept NOTHING HAPPENS

25th Sept NOTHING HAPPENS

26th September I call to complain (I spend at least one hour attempting to get a response from BT). I am promised that an external contractor has had to carry out works at the exchange but my internet access will be established on 27th or 28th sept.

27th september NO INTERNET

28th September NO INTERNET

28th SEPTEMBER 

THE BUSINESS CENTRE MANAGER AT MY ADDRESS SHOWS ME THE HIGH SPEED FIBRE OPTIC BRITISH TELECOM BOX THREE FEET AWAY FROM MY PHONE LINE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL IN THE SAME BUILDING. 

29th September I call again. I am on the phone. My toddler is hungry for breakfast but I am on the phone to BT. I miss my train because I am on the phone to BT.

Call centre guy promises to call me back.

I WAIT.......

I want high speed internet. It exists in the business centre i am a resident in. But bt has failed for an entire MONTH to give me even basic low speed access.

Please fix this @Btcare

Having read a couple of reviews by critics, although it is less than twenty minutes to midnight and I have many other things to do before I sleep, I feel moved to write something about the subject of the documentary I am watching.

The author is Terry Pratchett, diagnosed 3 years ago with Alzheimers, who will accompany the main contributor, Peter Smedley, on his final worldy trip to Dignitas in Switzerland.

Peter has motor neurone disease, and his condition has deteriorated recently to the point where he has decided to take the (probable) route of assisted suicide, although he claims (at the current point of watching, 11 minutes in) that he will reserve judgement until he is in Switzerland.

There is one unassailable point, which the producers make no attempt to cover up, and which we therefore assume, is a point relevant to their thesis, and that is that Peter and his lovely wife (no sarcasm meant) are posh. They are clearly wealthy.

I have watched a sequence of Peter struggle down the three steps outside of his lovely home, bent almost double. I have watched a sequence of Peter's zimmer frame, sitting forlornly in the hall. I can tell that Peter is (despite his physical ailment) a vibrant, intelligent man for whom the indignity of impairment is worse than the humiliation of perhaps, one day, having to have his bottom wiped. I say PETER! Please install a ramp? It doesn't have to be ugly. It doesn't have to shout "DISABLED PERSON LIVES HERE" if that is what worries you (and why should it?)…but why not do the thing which will help give you back the dignity you fear the loss of? Is it because you feel like you are giving in? Is that a failure? To accept a limitation in life?

I know where this documentary is going, because I have read the reviews, but there is one thing I cannot help but come back to again, and again, and again, and bless me, again, and forgive me, again and again and again for saying:

RAGE! RAGE! AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT.

And if you will not, or cannot rage - who will rage for you?

I ask because one of the most affecting newspaper features I have ever read, was on precisely this topic. 

You can read it here http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/23/euthanasia.cancer

I am not idiot enough to realise that it affected me deeply for two reasons *apart* from its sole content, namely that I had lost my father just a few months earlier to a sudden, accidental death, and secondly that the woman the article speaks about, bears a passing resemblance to my own mother.

Still, I have laid bear and made transparent my subjectivity and still, I rage.

I rage that Peter fears "indignity" so much that he cannot stoop to make his life easier by accepting his condition . I rage that this would not happen to someone less well off - because they cannot afford the £10,000 dignitas fee? Or because wealth makes you an island that lesser hands cannot touch? That the so called "dignity" of death is better than having someone wipe your bottom? I am the mother of a toddler. We have all had our arses wiped. If it was that bad, there would be a kiddiDignitas. There isn't. 

I rage that in Marc Weide's mothers life there seems to have been no cabal of women who came and implored her not to die - who told her that they would look after her, her sons, her husband. That the signature on the line of her death warrant came after two perfunctory visits from male medics, and after the second, her family had to reassure the medics that she stood by her initial plans to die when she could not find the words herself. I wonder if this matriarch would have chosen this route had she not been the sole female in a family of men. I do. I wonder.

What world have we come to that people fear incapacity so much they would rather die? When we trust our families so little to care and respect for us that we would rather snuff out the light of our lives. - For those who worry about "being a burden" I say YES, be a burden, and be not afraid of that. It is no more than you deserve and shoudl expect having been fathers, mothers, confidants, raised children, and given of your life. It is nothing to expect that in your elder years, if you become incapacitated, your family will help.

I never got the chance to wipe my Dad's bottom. I would so much rather do that than he be dead. If need be, one day, I will gladly wipe my Mums. After all, she wiped mine - its absolutely and completely the very least I could do.

PART 3

 Carried on from PART 1 and PART 2

So, at the aptly named “when is science not science” (answer whenever commissioners want ratings) session at DocFest 2010 saw me getting increasingly irked by the lack of on screen female participation. At the end of the session I asked why there weren’t more females on screen presenting science and why there weren’t more programmes aimed at the 5-16 age group providing positive role models.

David Glover from Specialist Factual commissioning at Ch 4 asked Steve Jones to respond first. I am not sure what I expected him to say, but it certainly wasn't what he did say:

His response was to allude to experiments in behavioural cognition which show miniscule, (yet apparently genuine) gender difference between boys and girls of under 5 in terms of learning, language and (that old chestnut) spatial awareness.*

*I’d like to add here that I am poor at parallel parking, but this has bugger all to do with me being female and a lot to do with the fact I never practice it.

This, he suggested, was perhaps the reason why there were more men than women working in science. The nature of science, he explained (thankfully in nice, small words) was such that it was perhaps better suited to the male temperament.

As if in compensation, he suggested that if you looked at the nice squishy sciences, like medicine, places for ladies were up to – in fact exceeded 50%! Amazing!

At this point (perhaps noting my face) David Glover intervened and said he was stopping Steve in his tracks as he was getting “dangerously close to sounding like [you] think women belong in the kitchen!”

Of course this was said in jest, and of course, this tale is told through the filter of my own experience (as a female former scientist, now working in science TV). Perhaps Steve didn’t mean to suggest women, in general, weren’t up to the task of science. Perhaps he felt he was giving a genuinely interesting scientific insight in his response.

What I took away from it – and what I worried that other delegates would take away from it, was a highly respected scientific figurehead in the UK – a geneticist no less, essentially saying that men are better at women than science; that’s why there are fewer women doing it and that’s why its pointless to go out of your way to provide role models.  

Claiming a psychological experiment as a genetic link to reinforce a sexual sterotype is not only bad science, but a dangerous precedent.

The fact is there is, of course, no evidence to link toddlers and lego bricks with gender splits in the careers in professional science and neither will there be. It was making an intellectual leap of the highest and most tenuous order.

There is also no way of unravelling the effect on young girls of being constantly bombarded with toys and images which reward them for being pink and princessy when it comes to career choices. (This is the same society rewards the boys, via their toys for building, constructing, and engineering).

In the Deathmatch arena, how do you fancy Angelina Ballerina’s chances against Bob the Builder?

(I’ve talked about this already in PART1 of this blog.)

So what I would say to those in science who have influence, and have a voice, and have a voice that many people listen to and respect, is please, please give girls a chance. Once you’ve proved there isn’t a nurture element, then come at me with your lego bricks. (no pink ones, mind)

NB You’ll have noticed that I have deliberately not expanded on the specific science, experiments, credibility or lack thereof of the experiments alluded to here. That is because

a)    they were not specifically stated at the event in time, and

b)    because that’s for another blog post but if you are interested in some of the reasons why myths and sterotypes perpetuate gender discrimination in the face of overwhelming evidence, you might like to read this. 

 Girls Are... Boys Are... : Myths, Stereotypes & Gender Differences http://www.campbell-kibler.com/Stereo.pdf

Last year after attending Sheffield DocFest, the annual UK filmmakers love in (or luvvie-in), I wrote this article Science - Men Only? PART 1.

Now, after a hiatus of several months, but inspired by this Guardian Article by BBC Science Commissioner Kim Shillinglaw, here is Part 2….

There is always a session at Docfest devoted to science, with many spin-off workshops and pitching rounds and so-forth. Last year's science session promised an illustrious panel including Kim Shillinglaw, representing the BBC, David Dugan (from Windfall Films, responsible for Inside Nature's Beast amongst other things) representing independent production companies, Professor Steve Jones, I presume, representing "science" and the delightful David Glover, specialist factual commissioner for Channel 4 chairing the event.

It was a fascinating session, not least for the number of times to the word "science" was studiously avoided. In fact in Channel 4's trailer tape, the word science was not used anywhere, if memory serves (did anyone else have Sarah Beeny's "Help My House is Falling Down" tagged as a science programme? Me neither.) 

Anyway, two major facts began to irk me during the session. One was the avoidance of the "S" word, and secondly the lack of female involvement in science programming. Give them their due, the BBC has been aware of this ever since I first worked there as a baby researcher back in the 1990's. Despite repeated campaigns and attempts to redress the balance, it is only now with rising stars such as Alice Roberts and Liz Bonnin that there is even the faintest glimmer of equality on the horizon.

My personal view is that you need good strong female role models doing science for kids to make a difference, and while CBEEBIES (for under fives) - has the tremendous Nina and the Neurones, in my opinion, there is precious little to inspire girls between 5-16 into science and engineering  on TV and that is a critical time for development of career aspirations.

So at the end of the session I asked why - and perhaps couldn't the broadcasters concentrate their efforts on commissing a programme that might do this?

What did they all say?

PART 3 coming soon!

The BBC is currently running a science strand entitled "Manlab", featuring their current Bloke du Jour, James May. The tagline concerns teaching Britain's blokes the "vital skills for modern man" including how to build a bar, launch a rocket and defuse a bomb.

Yorkie bar used a "no girls allowed" campaign 8 years ago to sell chocolate. It alarmed some feminists. I thought it was funny. This, however, is the BBC, in 2010, suggesting that women and girls can't, won't or shouldn't do things like use power tools or fix cars. The patronising Clarksonesque "oh for goodness sake its just a bit of fun" defence really doesn't hold water anymore and here's why:

Women are already woefully under-represented in science** (from higher education to careers and also in the popular media, which reflects their under-representation in science careers). The BBC ought to be doing everything it can as part of their public service remit to ensure that women are better represented. I know that they generally work hard to provide young women and girls with role models in strong presenters, so why undo that with unsubtle branding that reinforces exactly the stereotypes we are trying to break down?

The problem is that the rot sets in in girls expectations of themselves in science, maths and engineering fields at an extremely young age. If you ask girls to take a maths test but ask them to tick a gender box first, they will perform less well than boys. Girls, it seems, do not learn that they are not as good as boys at maths and science (because evidence is quickly gathering pace showing that the only difference is societal, also here), but they do learn (often taught unwittingly by teachers and parents) that they are not "supposed" to be as good at these subjects as boys, and then perform accordingly because they are less confident.

Boots's own Christmas catalogue this year boasts among its "Top Ten Toys for Boys" things like racing cars and meccano, whereas the girls is mostly populated with cuddly creatures. (There was one creative endeavour for girls: a "make your own enchanted princess castle" *sigh*).

If young girls are exposed to subtle and low-level cues that constantly reinforce the idea that they are simply princesses, only worthy of being beautiful enough to win a prince (James May?!) who will look after them, and do everything "manly" (i.e. that requires thought/logic or maths), for her, then what progress have we made in fifty years?

As it is, in most households, most women still do most of the domestic chores. The "girls" aisle at Toys R Us" is still stuffed with miniature prams, miniature washing machines, miniature irons and miniature cookers. Yes, there's a miniature version of every conceivable tortuous totem of domestic drudgery, just so we can ensure we limit our daughters horizons right there from toddler-hood.  If we still haven't modernised enough to be able to teach our kids that keeping house isn't women's work (and, as per the BBC and James May's Manlab, that powertools, fixing things and building things is strictly men's work) what hope is there of closing the gender divide in professional science and engineering?

And if you're interested in what top geneticist Professor Steve Jones had to say on the matter, read Part 2 (coming soon)

CLUE: I had to pick my jaw up off the floor.

**Gender and Science Briefing Notes from http://www.genderinscience.org/downloads/Briefing_Notes.pdf

1. Gendered Differences in Assessment & Recognition of Abilities & Work

Think of a scientist, think of a man. Studies on children’s perceptions of science and scientists demonstrate that the stereotypical image of science continues to be masculine. When asked to draw a scientist, children, both girls and boys, usually draw a man (Sjöberg, 2002).

Women have pursued science since historical records on science and technology have existed, as high priestesses and philosophers, as scholars in monasteries, in courts and in family observatories. It was the institutionalization of science and scientific training into science academies, learned societies, and universities, which led to the exclusion of women. This exclusion continued long into the 20th Century – for example, the University of Cambridge did not grant women degrees until 1947, the Royal Society, the world’s oldest scientific academy established in 1660, accepted its first female Fellows in 1945, and the French Academie des Sciences not

until 1979.

Scientific argumentation has frequently been used to legitimize the exclusion of women from scientific activities and to explain their continuing minority status (Rose, 1994; Schiebinger, 2001). However, no biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics have been found that can account for the low representation of women in academic and scientific research or leadership positions in these fields. Although most scientists and engineers believe that they are objective and intend to be fair, often unconscious gendered attitudes and stereotypes affect how they evaluate people, their work, and their potential. There is a substantial body of controlled experimental research and studies of real-life decision-making situations demonstrating that most people – both men and women – hold unintentional gender biases when assessing women’s and men’s abilities (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2007).

genSET Priority Support Areas

1. Remove gender stereotypes and gendered attitudes regarding assessment of female/male abilities and work

2. Make the research process more responsive to gender issues

3. Make science knowledge-making more gender sensitive

4. Remove unintentional biases, which create barriers to recruitment, advancement and retention of women, from institutional structures

5. Make the gender dimension part of the science excellence value system.

Convention of International Federation of University Women, 1922

THE MUM TEST 

I was out walking with my 4-year-old daughter. She picked up something off of the ground and started to put it in her mouth.. 
 I took the item away from her and I asked her not to do that. 
'Why?' my daughter asked. 
'Because it's been on the ground; you don't know where it's been, it's dirty,
And probably has germs,' I replied. 
At this point, my daughter looked at me with total admiration and asked,
'Mum, how do you know all this stuff? You are so clever.' 
I was thinking quickly and replied, 'All mums know this stuff.. It's on the Mum Test. You have to know it, or they don't let you be a Mum.' 
We walked along in silence for 2 or 3 minutes, but she was evidently pondering this new information. 
'Oh.....I get it!' she beamed, 'So if you don't pass the test you have to be the dad.' 
'Exactly,' I replied with a big smile on my face. 
  
  

Mr Bottom and I were partaking in what you might call an "animated" discussion the other day, wherein he asserted his view that domestic cleaning was a process, like foraging for fruit and nuts, or looking after offspring, that had it roots hidden deep inside the complexities of human evolution. The role of the female primate (in the wild), he further espoused, was constant, low-intensity work which went on pretty much 24/7, whereas the role of the male primate was bursts of high-intensity work (hunting) and then extended periods of sitting on their arses playing playstation  rest.

Call me oversensitive, but in my opinion, what was implicit in that suggestion, was that if we females cast aside our 21st century feminist principles for a second, we would realise that our real call of nature lay not even barefoot at the kitchen sink, but actually under it, sitting in beside the polishes, the bleaches, the 101 different types of detergents which are all chemically almost identical, but marketed to us under 101 different names for 101 different uses, all of them residing under the sub-heading "domestic drudgery."

So my questions to Mr B were:

1) When? When? WHEN I ASK YOU!? Was looking after an 18 month toddler a low intensity pursuit?

2) When was the last time any sub-human primates were spotted dashing over the surfaces of a tree with a can of Mr Sheen and a chamois?, and

3) You do realise it's your turn to load the dishwasher, don't you?

Cleanliness, far from being next to Godliness (atheists/skeptics insert your own alternative here) we now know to be physically bad for us. Dirt is good. )See Strachan's Hygiene Hypothesis for why) It stimulates our immune system. 

(Sanitation, is a slightly different topic - bringing loos indoors, far from being a mark of civilisation is actually a bit YUK if you think about it. Poo can do real harm. (See various E. coli outbreaks for evidence) Bears shit in the woods for a reason. Woods are big.

But dust, dust is great  (as long as you're not allergic, which was only another reason for us not to live indoors in the first place)

That Mr Bottom is totally and entirely wrong in his assertion is simply not in question (this is my blog after all). I'll take the food gathering and child-rearing arguments (as long as we can agree that this was sub-human primates in the wild, and not necessarily applicable to human primates in domesticated settings) but the cleaning? Its unnatural, and possibly downright dangerous. Ladies! Put down the detergent. Step away from the Sheen. (but Gentlemen, if you really want to whizz around the loo with some Toilet Duck, that's acceptable).

Principles behind the Agile Manifesto

Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer
through early and continuous delivery
of valuable software.

Welcome changing requirements, even late in
development. Agile processes harness change for
the customer's competitive advantage.

Deliver working software frequently, from a
couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a
preference to the shorter timescale.

Business people and developers must work
together daily throughout the project.

Build projects around motivated individuals.
Give them the environment and support they need,
and trust them to get the job done.

The most efficient and effective method of
conveying information to and within a development
team is face-to-face conversation.

Working software is the primary measure of progress.

Agile processes promote sustainable development.
The sponsors, developers, and users should be able
to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

Continuous attention to technical excellence
and good design enhances agility.

Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount
of work not done--is essential.

The best architectures, requirements, and designs
emerge from self-organizing teams.

At regular intervals, the team reflects on how
to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts
its behavior accordingly.