Scorpio Risen

Once again I feel I have to apologise for my lack of posts, but uni’s got pretty intense. I had 5 essays due in the period of a week and a half, and I’ve still got two left to write!
However, I should have more time to blog over the holidays, and I’m particularly excited about discovering all sorts of feminist articles and journals on JSTOR 🙂
I’m a bit confused by this new wordpress layout!


I found this on Liz’s blog, and thought it might be fun to do, rather than actually do any work. 🙂

Your result for Are You a Jackie or a Marilyn? Or Someone Else? Mad Men-era Female Icon Quiz…

You Are a Bette!

You are a Bette — “I must be strong”

Bettes are direct, self-reliant, self-confident, and protective.

How to Get Along with Me

  • * Stand up for yourself… and me.
  • * Be confident, strong, and direct.
  • * Don’t gossip about me or betray my trust.
  • * Be vulnerable and share your feelings. See and acknowledge my tender, vulnerable side.
  • * Give me space to be alone.
  • * Acknowledge the contributions I make, but don’t flatter me.
  • * I often speak in an assertive way. Don’t automatically assume it’s a personal attack.
  • * When I scream, curse, and stomp around, try to remember that’s just the way I am.

What I Like About Being a Bette

  • * being independent and self-reliant
  • * being able to take charge and meet challenges head on
  • * being courageous, straightforward, and honest
  • * getting all the enjoyment I can out of life
  • * supporting, empowering, and protecting those close to me
  • * upholding just causes

What’s Hard About Being a Bette

  • * overwhelming people with my bluntness; scaring them away when I don’t intend to
  • * being restless and impatient with others’ incompetence
  • * sticking my neck out for people and receiving no appreciation for it
  • * never forgetting injuries or injustices
  • * putting too much pressure on myself
  • * getting high blood pressure when people don’t obey the rules or when things don’t go right

Bettes as Children Often

  • * are independent; have an inner strength and a fighting spirit
  • * are sometimes loners
  • * seize control so they won’t be controlled
  • * figure out others’ weaknesses
  • * attack verbally or physically when provoked
  • * take charge in the family because they perceive themselves as the strongest, or grow up in difficult or abusive surroundings

Bettes as Parents

  • * are often loyal, caring, involved, and devoted
  • * are sometimes overprotective
  • * can be demanding, controlling, and rigid

Take Are You a Jackie or a Marilyn? Or Someone Else? Mad Men-era Female Icon Quiz at HelloQuizzy

Your result for Howard Gardner’s Eight Types of Intelligence Test…


“This area has to do with interaction with others. People in this category are usually extroverts and are characterized by their sensitivity to others’ moods, feelings, temperaments and motivations, and their ability to cooperate in order to work as part of a group. They communicate effectively and empathize easily with others, and may be either leaders or followers. They typically learn best by working with others and often enjoy discussion and debate.

Careers which suit those with this intelligence include politicians, managers, teachers, social workers and diplomats.” (Wikipedia)

Take Howard Gardner’s Eight Types of Intelligence Test at HelloQuizzy

…I know it’s been ages since I’ve posted anything, and it’s been ages since I’ve posted anything substantial.

I’m not going to post anything substantial in this particular post, but it’s just a heads up to say I’m still alive, I’m still interested in blogging, but I’ve kind of had a bit of writer’s block, as well as stuff like A Level exams and starting Uni and stuff.

I’ve missed blogging, but sometimes I don’t think I can bring anything new or worthwhile to the table. I’ve kind of lost a bit of confidence somewhere along the line, and I don’t think there’s any reason for it. I think it may have more to do with a sense of bad timing. There have been issues I’ve blogged in my mind, but never actually typed up, and it got to the point where I would’ve been too late to come to the party. For example, the recent abortion legislation stuff – I went to a meeting on it in October in the House of Commons, and I went to the protest (my first protest!) – and also, the Russel Brand/Jonathan Ross saga (damn I hate Brand).

The point is, I guess I’m just typing these words up to get me back in the habit of blogging, and I should hopefully continue to keep blogging.

Fuck yes!

Posted on: 20 May, 2008

“22 weeks

The fifth and final abortion amendment is Richard Ottaway’s attempt to reduce the abortion time limit to 22 weeks. MPs are going through the lobbies now.


That’s it. MPs have rejected Ottaway’s amendment by 304 votes to 233, a majority of 71.

The first major Commons debate on abortion in almost 20 years has ended with the status quo.

The anti-abortion lobby has failed to change the law. The abortion time limit remains at 24 weeks.

So, after seven hours of debate, the only substantial changes to the law are new rights for single women and lesbians seeking to have a child through IVF.”


FUCK YOU to the Anti-Choice brigade.

20 weeks

MPs are now voting on whether to reduce the limit to 20 weeks, Nadine Dorries’s amendment.


Again rejected.


😀 This is good stuff, good stuff so far. I just hope that MPs don’t flake out and think that 22 weeks is a good compromise. It’s not. Just stick to 24 weeks, dammit.

However, I’m a realist, and I do realise that the anti-choice, anti-woman brigade will be back.


I’m tired, so forgive any ramblings.

Who else is desperately refreshing the rolling coverage of the abortion debate on the Guardian’s website?

I am so, so, so relieved that the proposal for a 12 week limit have been defeated. 12 weeks – are you fucking kidding me?!

You know, there has been so much said about this whole issue on the f-word and elsewhere. There’s not really that much more I can add, nothing new I can really bring to the table.

It is very worrying that there is a real possibility that women’s rights can be undermined tonight. And, if not tonight – well, Nadine Dorries and co will continue to fight for their anti-choice, anti-woman agenda. No, it’s not pro-life at all. It’s bullshit. What about the life of a woman who is vulnerable? Any reductions on the upper limit will be affecting those women who are most vulnerable. And that’s fucked up. I don’t care how many high-profile cases about babies surviving at 20-24 weeks there are. The reason why these cases are so high-profile is simply because they’re so goddamn rare. Duh, it’s a basic principle of news worthiness!

I’m now so relieved that the 16week proposal has been squashed. Thank Goddess.

I am  horrified, yes, horrified that these amendments have even been proposed. I don’t give a shit about what the BBC news reporters claim the debate is about: it’s not “sanctity of life” vs science. The real issue at stake is a woman’s fundamental right to choose, to have her own autonomy. Dammit all, feminists fought so hard. We’re still fighting. Writing letters (that’s about all I could do this time round), protesting, signing petitions.

Just read this post at the F-Word.

I can’t believe it.

Actually, I tell a lie. I’m not surprised at all. I mean, when the “clients” (talk about an euphemism!) include politicians with a good deal of power and authority, no bloody wonder they can weasel their arseholey way out of giving evidence or whatnot. It’s pretty damn sickening, really. If you ask me, it’s a complete abuse of power.

It just absolutely tickles me that one of the men, Senator David Vitter, is “a right-wing ‘family values’ crusader and abstinence-only indoctrination architect”.

Well, of course he fucking is.

I’m sorry, but it is my belief that these “a right-wing ‘family values’ crusader and abstinence-only indoctrination architect” types are the most likely to be hypocritical scumbags. I’m sure I should find some data to back this theory up, but in such cases, these types do tend to crop up a lot.

Not only is it complete double standards to allow the male Johns to avoid questioning in court while interrogating 15 women, publicling outing and shaming them, but the questions they appear to be asking the women seem to be of a more titillating nature, as opposed to asking them sensitive and/or sensible questions. There appears to be no other function of these questions – such as “when she was ‘aggressive’ with a client, when she was ‘more submissive,’ when she had a difficult client (‘he tried to remove the condom’) and how often she got ‘intimate'” – than titillation, or shaming the woman.  

You know, this is a pretty damn good example to use when people claim that men and women are “equal” now, ‘cos in a post-patriarchal society, this bullshit wouldn’t happen in a court case.