*blinkblink* So I can argue from the feminist perpective and be convincing. Golly. Does this mean I could argue from the prohibitionist* perspective and be convincing? That might be a useful exercise.
Anyway, so I did some maths in my head, and discovered that since I've aced 50% of the course, I only have to get 14.5% in the exam to pass the course. But, um.. I've gone and set myself a precedent now, haven't I? How cool would it be for me to go back to uni after a decidedly average first attempt and a 20 year gap, and actually do really well?
This is me resolving to study lots. I had forgotten about the bit where they more or less tell you what will be in the exam. I think that'll help lots with the achieving of more than 14.5%, yep.
* Don't assume that this means I disagree with feminism as a principle the way I do with prohibition as a principle. My disagreement with feminism is mostly in the way the arguments are made - but if I can make those arguments convincingly for an essay, I can get inside them and understand the viewpoint that creates them more. Being able to do this with prohibitionism will give me good learnin's for the Futuretime methinks.
*goes to read something lightweight and easy*
(PJ O'Rourke, anyone? He cracks me the hell up)
[EDIT] And in order to prove my astounding brilliance once and for all, I just blindly sideswiped a kebab stick I was using to pick my teeth, and drove the pointy end about half an inch into the roof of my mouth (luckily on an angle). Doh.