Scorpio Risen

Archive for the ‘Feminism’ Category

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.

I know I haven’t written for a while, and I have started a few drafts but felt that I had nothing new to bring to the table at this stage, and I am preoccupied with universities and revision etc, etc, blah blah blah.

Anyway, I saw this brilliant article in the Guardian’s Women section today, and then I found this post on the F-Word about the article.

I have to say that I do agree with some of the criticisms of Sex And The City in both articles, but I do love Sex And The City at the same time, and yes, I do love the shoes too : ) Sure, it’s not perfect feminist TV, but let’s face it, what is?  

Mind you, I think it is fair to say that Charlotte is an incredibly annoying character.

Check out this bollocks.

Now – if that article creeped you out (holy shit – I think that bloke’s using that crucifix to compensate for something),  or annoyed/enraged/pissed you off, check out this piece by the f-word on it to calm you down a bit.  

Grr- damn those pesky anti-choicers. It seems they’d use every dirty trick in the book to undermine – or scrap – womyn’s abortion rights.

Whether it’s using shocking imagery (cheap and tacky, I know), making up ridiculous “post-abortion syndromes”, or – now – this whole ridiculous “post-abortive men” malarky.


You know, they have some damn nerve. They do, they really do. I just love how they didn’t care at the time; in fact, it even says that one of them “felt only indifference” at the time, but now – it’s a totally different story. How convenient for those damn anti-choicers. It just seems to me that they’re using these supposed “men’s tears” to try to control women and manipulate the abortion debate with false emotions.

Men’s tears? So what.

Now, I do tend to attempt to be somewhat diplomatic with most issues, but no – not this one. Usually I tend to avoid invalidating people’s feelings. But – perhaps it’s because I’m inclined to cynicism – I doubt very much they really care about those abortions. It’s more than likely that they’re just pissed they couldn’t control those women.

I’m not saying that I think men aren’t affected by abortions; as it mentions in the F-word article: “As Broadsheet’s Catherine Price says: ‘I think few people would argue that the decision to have an abortion is a serious one, and that it carries the possibility of regret. There are plenty of instances when both women and men could benefit from therapy or counseling both before and after the abortion — and it is definitely not a decision to be taken lightly.’”
But I just a smell a rat with these guys. Just reading what they said makes me stop and think, hmm – wait a sec, there’s something not quite right. I can’t see them as genuine. That’s why I’m not at all sympathetic to their “plight”.

Happy new year folks! 🙂

I usually feel optimistic at the beginning of each new year. I like to tell myself that it’s a new year, and a new slate. It is in this vein that I believe now would be a good marker for the beginnings of a new sexual revolution.

Do not get me wrong, we have definitely made progress the last few decades. I’d hate to live in a society where the 1950s model of sexuality reigned supreme. However, I really have to question how far we really have come?

You cannot tell me that we still do not have seriously screwed-up issues relating to sex and sexuality! I’ve personally already written some posts about some of these issues. Women are still objectified (hell, read any lad’s mag) and treated as meat (hello – roasting), raunch culture just sucks, there are some selfish fuckers out there (not everyone, though), and disgusting attitudes to rape and rape victims (the amount of posts I could link to on this subject!). And some people are just so fucking clueless. All these – and other issues, such as sexual double standards – need to be addressed, dammit. I mean – talk about a suckfest.

Sure, there is more openness about sexuality. And it’s not like sex is swept under the carpet, hidden away. Hell, we all know it’s completely the opposite: it’s right up there in your face. But it’s always the same image and representation of sex. Isn’t that perhaps a bit troubling, right? And from which perspective is the vast majority of sexuality represented? Hmm…let me take a guess…

Whenever I’ve read anything about the sexual revolution of the ’60ies, I am always a bit troubled by the part Playboy/Hefner played in it. I always really feel that that kinda set a precedent. Sure, sex is now more in the open, but it’s got bunny ears and shit. I really don’t like that. I don’t feel comfortable with how much the media views sexuality, and particularly women, from a male gaze. I really don’t feel comfortable with the effect this has on women’s self esteem. You’ve heard about that APA report which found “that the proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harmful to girls’ self-image and healthy development”, right? I have this theory that all this – the objectification, the male-centric sexuality bolleaux which is touted as the definition of sexuality, bla bla bla – is largely due to the part Hefner and co. played in the sexual revolution of the 60ies. Hence, my thinking that we need a damn new sexual revolution, all our very own. One which won’t be hijacked by capitalism (I know – some dream, hey.)

There are also yet more issues, some very disturbing.

For example of pure disturbance, the charity Marie Stopes discovered in a recent poll of 1000 girls aged 11-15 that:

  • Only half knew AIDS could be prevented by using condoms
  • 40% thought it was illegal for under 16s to buy condoms
  • The latest rumour is that you can’t get pregnant having sex on a copy of the Yellow Pages.

Clearly, in Britain we need more damn sex education. We need to revolutionise our sex ed. (America damn well does too – abstinence only, what the fuck is up with that?!) We need to address where the hell kids get these dumbarse ideas from, and we need to damn well make sure they’re equipped with information!

 I just think we all deserve a better society. One with no double standards – so, no judgements – one where we are all able to gain access to objective and impartial information, and allowed and able to make our own informed decisions about our own sex lives. One where there is no one standard or “norm” for sexuality – where homosexuals are just as well represented, for example. No shame. No misogyny. 🙂