That’s fantastic, you’re a great cartoonist (definitely better than “artsy fartsy”). I laughed out loud! 🙂
Laurelin has a link to the UK feminist Subtext Magazine, I’ve never read one, but I’ve heard them mentioned favorably by other feminist bloggers.
Yes, clearly Catherine MacKinnon has been living in a garret all this time.
and yes, total coincidence that of the four “anti-feminists” you name there, only one of them physically resembles the blonde, femmey ditz you have caricatured there; Camille Paglia’s downright butch, Schlafly’s one for sensible shoes these days I’d rather imagine, and gee, Limbaugh, he’s a MAN.
but everyone loves a bubble-headed blonde in heels, right? Class for women is aallllll about being femme. As in, being femme is REWARDED by the patriarchy. Just ask Twisty; she’ll tell you all about it. p.s. blondes in makeup and heels R stoopid.
By the way, I realize that spelling and grammar flames are also considered signs of classism, sometimes correctly. Nonetheless, if you’re going to base your cartoon around the idea that the rich anti-feminist doesn’t have a brain in her head or a book on her shelf, and the -real- feminist, i.e. you, has real, actual, books, you might want to hit the one that says “Dictionary” a bit more often. Among others.
It’s “emphasizing,” not “enfasizing.”
“Apple” is spelt with an “A.”
And the London Underground is not a political movement.
Dude, you are taking this WAY too seriously. And harshly.
This cartoon doesn’t say “blonds are anti-feminist/blondes are stupid/blondes don’t read” etc anymore than it says “brunettes wear glasses and sit on the floor”. This cartoon is trying to say “anti-feminist have a much easier ride”.
Those “anti-feminists I named there” weren’t, ehm, named by me. It was a quote from someone else. I even provided the link to her article!
I am fully aware that APPLE is spelt with an A, that PRADA is not PRODA, that CHANEL is not CHANTEL and that cock tail is COCKTAIL. It’s done on purpose. It’s often done in cartoons.
And you lost me completely with the London Underground.
You are picking at particular points in the image and arriving to your own conclusions. Which is fair enough, but you cannot put your conclusions into the one I wanted to express.
“Dude, you are taking this WAY too seriously. And harshly. ”
Oh! I missed the funny part! You mean, I, um, have no sense of humor, and need to lighten up…? Huh. Why does that sound familiar -think think think-
The spelling: you know, I was -just- thinking “she might actually try for the ol’ ‘I meant to do that,'” but it didn’t actually occur to me that you’d really…Well. Okay then.
And, I know you didn’t pick those examples; but, see, if you pick the -quote- to shore up your point, then, well, people are gonna assume that you -agree- with what it has to say. Or can’t you think of any other blonde simpering anti-feminist bestsellers besides Coulter yourself? I could name a few. Laura Ingraham. Thing is? They don’t sell just because they’re blonde and thin and femmey in the cover photo and the media ops; mostly, they sell because the content appeals to reactionary attitudes. Kind of like you just did here with this cartoon. Which is why people like Paglia or Schlafly or Michelle Malkin -also- get bestsellers and/or high-flying careers. See.
But, yes, clearly, the -only- reason the world has failed to appreciate your stunning wit is because you’re just too damn -radically feminist-. What other reason could there -possibly– be? And no, I am sure that there is -no- relatively high-profile radical feminist piece of media which would publish you, so there’s really no point, like, putting your fingers together and googling. I mean, “off our backs,” assuming they’re not too frivolous to post cartoons at all. Couldn’t hurt, right? Just, let us know, will you? Because if they -do- publish it as is, well, that’ll be…instructive. And if they turn it down, well, you’ll know that they, too, aren’t -radically feminist enough.-
Which reminds me: again, Catherine MacKinnon. Does rather well for herself, professionally. Sells books, has influence. Is considered a radical feminist by most people. Is not blonde or frou-frou, although, like just a -shitload- of other relatively high-profile people including erm self-defined radical feminists, is, yep, white. How’d she manage?
Did you consider that you are upholding stereotypes that are put out there by the antifeminists of the world. They are the ones claiming that only ugly, lonely, poor people are feminists and the beautiful people hate feminism. It’s a lie that you seem to be buying into with this graphic.
In my life, feminists are not lonely, they are activists who form groups to fight oppression. If you want to portray a “real feminist”, why not honor those women who are out in the streets, stirring things up, making a difference. How about showing how we support each other, no matter how we dress, the height of our heels or the color of our clothes?
If you haven’t met feminists like us, I recommend it.
Huh, I didn’t think that the anti-feminist writer had to represent Ann Coulter or other right-wing writers (and some of them, like Phyllis Schlafly or Charlotte Allen, are older and more “matronly” looking than not). She struck me more as the writer of those obnoxious, atrociously sexist dating or beauty advice books who go around telling women to make themselves beautiful and submissive or else they’ll never get a man and parroting the oldest antifeminist tropes.
You got what I was trying to say, L.M. Anti-feminists don’t stand up and say “I’m an anti-feminist”. They only have to write about, as you say,
“obnoxious, atrociously sexist dating or beauty advice books who go around telling women to make themselves beautiful and submissive or else they’ll never get a man and parroting the oldest antifeminist tropes.”
i.e.:”The Rules” is anti-feminist too, even if no one specifically meant for it to be.
Hey Mary Tracy
Ignore Belledame. Just…ignore her. Or block her at least. She literally trolls around radical feminist blogs and throws vitriol at them all the fucking time. It’s obnoxious as hell. She gets rude with you right away for absolutely no reason. She throws personal insults at people and calls them names just because they are anti-porn, etc. I have seen it before a couple of times but it was a long time ago so I can’t find the blog or thread she did that in (as reference). I can’t imagine what she’s like in person ::shudders::
Ahem, okay so back to the post itself: AWESOME! When I saw that cartoon I was not at all getting the impression that you were dissing blonde women, or femme women. And I am very feminine sometimes. I wear lipstick, high heels to work, etc. And I was not at all offended by the cartoon. What the cartoon said to me is that writers with race and class privilege (embodied by the blonde woman in high heels, with a cocktail) who write beauty tips and how-to-do-fellatio crap are the ones who get published while women of color, particularly radical women of color who deconstruct the White Supremacist Patriarchy are barely ever published or given exposure. For Maude’s sakes, why is that so hard to grasp? Oh, and don’t bother listening to anyone coming from RenEv’s stupid blog, those people seriously just have nothing better to do than to harass radical feminists online. It’s assinine, really.
As a woman of color I say: two thumbs way up on the cartoon. And I can’t use a paintbrush to save my life… 😛
“What the cartoon said to me is that writers with race and class privilege (embodied by the blonde woman in high heels, with a cocktail) who write beauty tips and how-to-do-fellatio crap are the ones who get published while women of color, particularly radical women of color who deconstruct the White Supremacist Patriarchy are barely ever published or given exposure.”
Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to say.
If the woman had been just sitting there with nothing to say, I may have understood where the criticism comes from. But she has a huge “ANTI-FEMINIST WRITER” sign above her head!!! Therefore, all the “negative” things one could say about her, like the fact that she doesn’t seem to have anything to say, come from the fact that she’s an ANTI-FEMINIST WRITER. That’s how I’ve defined her, that’s the label I put on her. She’s not a “feminine” woman, nor a “blonde”. She’s an anti-feminist writer.
Some people seem to need a “cartoons 101” class.
The fact that so many people seem to be so keen in defining an anti-feminist writer by her looks, is worrying.
Something else I find disturbing (and a little hilarious) is that commenters here, well one of them, were going ballistic over the fact that you misspelled some brand names of products. Is that one of the main reasons they should be angry? Who cares? Are these brands and designer companies so fucking sacred to the point where it’s so incredibly wrong to misspell their stupid names? Do we really capitulate that much to capitalism and not see the hypocrisy? And besides, all these big designers and brands exploit sweatshop labor in other countries, so to get mad at someone for (intentionally) misspelling their names is pretty strange, honestly…
Okay I didn’t mean to get too off-topic but I had to point that out.
I’ve really got to take exception to belledame being called a troll. I once had a commenter tell me I deserved to be raped, and that he was going to find me and rape me himself – that is a troll. I’ve seen comments at other people’s blogs telling them they’re worthless, pathetic, better off dead. That is a troll. People who leave comments saying this is boring, this is pointless, YOU’RE boring and pointless – those are trolls. Belledame isn’t a troll. She disagrees with you very passionately indeed quite clearly and obviously gets angry and fed up. But don’t call her a troll.
Caroline, as I have said before I have seen Belledame make personal attacks on people at other blogs, and she is getting to that level here. Furthermore, the other element that makes her close to a troll is that she constantly comments on radical feminist blogs only to yell at them and make pointless arguments and throw mud instead of trying to actually engage in a discussion. Last time I checked, trolls did shit like that.
And I have also had rape threats thrown at me too, trust me, I know that there are trolls out there that are infinitely worse, so I am not comparing Belledame to those dudes, I am just saying a lot of the stuff she does makes her a troll, pretty much.
“People who leave comments saying this is boring, this is pointless, YOU’RE boring and pointless – those are trolls.”
I remember Belledame making comments like that at bloggers, but as I have said before, it was a while ago and I cannot for the life of me remember which blog and where those comments are.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to make this all about one blogosphere member or anything…
I do not think that pointing out a stereotype is the same as upholding a stereotype.
I thought everyone in the feminist blogosphere knew that BD is an antifeminist troll.
It might have been somewhat less offensive to the starbellied women if you had made your feminist and antifeminist twins.
Not because your cartoon isn’t perfectly clear in contrasting P compliance with non P compliance, but because for some people even drawing a picture isn’t clear enough.
“Those people seriously just have nothing better to do than to harass radical feminists online. It’s assinine, really.”
And by harass you mean chronically annoy. It’s the internet corollary of the advice that you should never get into a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel: best not to get into a argument with some nutter who literally has nothing better to do than sit at her computer day and night, week in, week out, searching obsessively for someone, anyone she can vent her enormous displaced rage at, flinging sub-Dorothy Parkeresque witticisms (‘suck on my tampon’, ‘shut up, you stupid f-ker’) like so much monkey droppings. It’s apparently the sum total of this Belledame person’s life; she has no other. It must be painful to be so alone and unloveable, but radical feminists aren’t the source of her misery. We’re just a convenient distraction from her real problems, which she doesn’t have the courage to face.
The highminded thing would be to try to have compassion for her, I guess.
So I was just reading these comments on a cartoon that didn’t strike me as either hilarious or terribly offensive, and then I got to the last one, and….
First of all, I’ve met the woman. She’s got a life. She’s even got an online life that isn’t all about disagreeing with radical feminists; if you read her blog, you’d realize that. She posts about stuff like the recent California marriage decision, John McCain’s twisted heart, and the wisdom of using a graphic photo of some anonymous cooter to prove a point about the offensiveness of “cunt.”
Second, wow! Is this not a vicious personal attack? I’m biased, but it seems much nastier than anything Belledame has said on this thread, either about the cartoon or the writer. It’s also strikingly similar both to the righthand side of the cartoon and to stuff I’ve seen written about feminists like Andrea Dworkin. So angry! So coarse! She’s got nothing better to do than complain! God, what a sad lonely bitch! She’s probably mentally ill–she’s certainly hysterical. I guess the compassionate thing to do would be to ignore her, right after posting a paragraph about how irrational and worthless she is.
(Don’t go responding to it in kind, BD–it’ll just prove that you’re rageful and vindictive.)
Some of these comments about belle are absolutely dreadful.
Now, I don’t see all the comments she leaves here and there, but from the stuff I’ve seen her leave, it’s pretty clear that if she thinks an argument is ridiculous or an opinion is offensive, by God she’s going to make it known. I don’t understand, however, if she says as bluntly as she can that something written is crap, why therefore people react by attacking her character rather than her argument.
Saying she is ‘harassing’ radfems is a bit worrying – I don’t agree with throwing that word around like that. If she’s responding to what you’ve written and you’ve allowed her comment to get through moderation or in this case you’ve not deleted it, then I don’t class this as harassment. The legal connotations of that word make it a more serious allegation. She is, I think, perfectly within reason to express her opinion on something that offends her or something she takes issue with. If she was attacking people personally or leaving comments with no relevance to the post then I wouldn’t defend her.
“It’s apparently the sum total of this Belledame person’s life; she has no other. It must be painful to be so alone and unloveable, but radical feminists aren’t the source of her misery. We’re just a convenient distraction from her real problems, which she doesn’t have the courage to face.”
– it’s this comment that’s brought me to defend belle. What an absolutely disgusting thing to say. She has ‘no life’? That is exactly what children say in school to dismiss and put down another child. How on earth do you dare to make that judgement on her personal life from what she says about your arguments? It does not take that long to read a post, respond to it and keen tabs on it. I do it myself and although from time to time I do forget where I’ve left comments, for the stuff I think is important, I will keep checking back. I think that’s perfectly reasonable. Speaking for myself, I thought it was important for people looking for info. on feminism not to think that this was an acceptable view, this dichotomy the cartoon appears to present. Consequently, do I “have no life”???
As for being “so alone and so unloveable” – that disgusts me. Utterly disgusting. You think because she disagrees she’s alone and unloveable? Or is it because she’s so vocal about it? Or both? As it happens, it’s very clear that she’s very popular. Some people may interpret her writing as very passionate and enthusiastic, she’s clearly a fighter, a force. I love that about her character, and I know her as well as you do I should think. “so alone and so unloveable” – Christ…. You’ve lost the argument there.
“Real problems she doesn’t have the courage to face” – I don’t know what you’re alluding to. If she does have ‘real problems’ then I personally don’t think her blog or comment threads is the place to deal with them. And hell, maybe she thinks patriarchy, misogyny, stereotyping of women etc are “real problems”. I know I do. As for her personal life, I don’t know – I’m not her personal friend, I am her reader. What she writes, therefore, concerns me, and not what goes on behind her when she’s at her desk.
This comment thread is a very clear example of attacking a person rather than their argument. It’s weak and it doesn’t work. Now, I don’t think she attacks people, characters, etc instead of their argument, but then I don’t follow her about the blogosphere. What I can say for certain that this comment thread, attacking a woman because of her arguments and aiming it at her character is foolish and misguided. Things that have been said about her are revolting and irrelevant. If someone attacks your writing, they are not attacking YOU. I think this is where the egotistical feminism stuff comes in. It’s NOT about YOU.
I was hoping this whole discussion would die off, but seeing as it hasn’t so far, I’m stepping in.
I did think the criticism of belledame222 was out of line and unfair. BUT in all honesty, it was belledame222 who started with the offensive and unfair criticism, refusing to even try to see the point I was explaining to her.
I am not taking sides here. True, saying nasty things about belledame222 was wrong, but those things are being said over here, where they can’t get to her. Meanwhile, her nasty comments were said about me and in my blog, which has hurt me. As I said, I’m not taking sides. Nasty-ness is wrong no matter where it comes from or where it’s being directed at (except, perhaps, with politicians and big CEOs).
I didn’t think her comments were all THAT offensive, or I would have deleted them and we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now. I have so far not deleted a single comment on this blog, and I’m planning on continuing with this attitude for as long as I can.
So, from now on, criticism of other people, NO, constructive and fair criticism of post, YES.
Well, I am an online friend and reader of both BD and Ren Ev, so you can dismiss me if you wish. However, I’m also an avid comic/cartoon/graphic novel reader. So when I see your cartoon, I get it. I understand the point that you’re making, and it’s clever, and in fact, I’ve seen cartoons that are similar – one was in Ms., if I’m not mistaken – in other words, it’s a fairly typical representation of anti-feminist and feminist writers.
The thing is, though you were clearly not intending to impugn blonde women or femme women, by representing the physical characteristics of an anti-feminist writer and of a feminist writer in the way you did – even though these representations are common – you did give the impression that anti-feminist writers are femme and feminist writers are not – you played off of the “dumb blonde” stereotype. This is an issue because of the way that femme women are treated in feminist debates, and you don’t have to go very far to find examples of why this is hurtful.
The larger question is, how, then, do you represent an anti-feminist writer so that one doesn’t make these connections? I don’t have an answer. Perhaps she could also be brunette and wear an expensive suit, though obviously, the stereotype helps make the point. But I think you should consider that the stereotype is conveying a different point than the one you wanted to make, and that it is hurting people.
I think plainsfeminist pinpoints an important issue with the cartoon: “by representing the physical characteristics of an anti-feminist writer and of a feminist writer in the way you did … you did give the impression that anti-feminist writers are femme and feminist writers are not”
But she even admits herself she doesn’t know how to represent such a person.
Which I think addresses an even more important point: how does one draw/represent a woman that does not somehow feed a stereotype? You can always draw the *opposite* of a stereotype but even that’s too reactionary and still dependent upon the stereotype (and means any woman who does not *present* as the opposite of the stereotype is up for criticism). That one cannot do this is such a crucial point (appropriation x infinity) and probably a more interesting discussion than “how many ways can I tell Mary Tracy how to do her drawings”–which she has has taken and addressed *graciously* might I add.
As for discussions surrounding belledame222 and how she has been treated–the insults given to her certainly do not help any particular divisions and do not fairly critique how she has acted in *this* thread. However, no one here is so naive as to believe those comments were made about this specific instance right? Those comments instead (I’d bet big$) come from a history of interactions, or posts/threads, full of mis-characterizations, and mockings of many a radical feminist. *Many* times when said radical feminists have no interest in such instigations or in posts indulging a known disagreement. At some point it is obvious that all the linking to and taking words out of context and posts dedicated to, again, indulging duh-disagreements will get *old*.
Radical feminists will get fed up. As well they should.
Friends/supporters of BD can and have every right to question the charges and call them out for their harsh tone but let’s not be so one-sided.
plain(s)feminist does have a point. It is impossible to make comics and/or cartoons without falling into stereotyping. The only alternatives are to create whole characters or to go for stick figures. But when one makes a one time only comic is literally impossible to get one’s message across without resorting to stereotypes. Otherwise people would NOT understand the message. And it’s true of all comics. Rich, powerful, beautiful, politician, poor, all are depicted in a very clear ways.
I, seeing the limitations of this system, tried to make it better by labeling the characters in the comic, so that all the criticism would fall onto their “feminist” or “anti-feminist” nature, and not on whether one has straight hair and the other has curly hair. But please note that this “labelling” mechanism is seen as a very bad move in the comic world. It’s a blatant recognition that one cannot do one’s job properly in the drawing department, and has to rely on unnecessary words.
We could argue whether I should stop trying to use images and comics to convey my feminist points, seeing as how bad stereotypes are. But I personally feel like we would be missing something. The Guerrilla Girls have used images to make their points and I haven’t seen or heard anyone criticising them for using either pictures of naked women OR pictures of famous actresses.
This makes me think a lot about Dianne DiMassa’s Hothead Paisan, which also relies on stereotypes. I have to go back and look at some and see what I think after having this conversation – IIRC, her stereotypes are much-exaggerated and blatantly over-the-top. I think the Guerrilla Girls, in using recognizable works of art, are doing something quite different, too, in the way they use these images. Leanne Franson has used images like the ones in this cartoon to represent feminism and anti-feminism very generally, but she also sometimes has her main (feminist) character, Liliane, dress up in wigs and heels and so on, so one doesn’t get the sense that it is being femme that is the defining issue.
I do think that what is problematic for some folks is less this particular image, and more this particular image in the larger context of a background of many online discussions between feminists of various stripes about heels, shaved legs, short skirts, lipstick, etc., and how they fit or don’t fit into feminism. (I could be wrong about that.)
Like I said, I don’t have any answers, but I do appreciate the discussion, and now I have an excuse to dig through my old comics and think more about this.
See, I don’t even understand this whole “femme” thing. For me, it’s not that one is femme and other is … the opposite of femme, whatever the Hell that is. All I see is one woman who is beautiful and rich, and another who is poor and black. I mean, the black woman is wearing pink socks and has long-ish hair. Their class difference rings far louder than any “femme” – “non-femme” thing. One is sitting at an expensive place having a cocktail, the other has to survive off baked beans. One wears very expensive clothing, the other just wears jeans. One has a fancy laptop, the other a “battered old thing”. It’s not that the black woman is not “femme”. It’s that she a) can’t afford it and b) the cannot be “white” which is always, always associated with femininity (Ain’t I a woman). I personally don’t even believe in “femme” and “anti-femme” (or whatever)
In the end, people’s readings of the cartoon say more about themselves and they say about the cartoon itself.
So I’d just accept that the idea’s good — there really is a lot more support for anti-feminists, including antifeminist women — but the execution needs work. When I was a (student) production manager for a college paper the art director would sometimes send an image back five or ten times for refinement. And while it took a little while to get used to that back and forth. But it’s *art* I’d say, but it’s *not illustrating a point* they’d say. Eventually I agreed.
Anyway, since it’s pretty clear from your reaction that you meant to communicate that anti-feminists get a lot of perqs and not that they’re cocktail-sipping blondes with (hand-drawn) bubbles for thoughts you could probably modify the image to show maybe something more evenly matched, an intent head-down woman with an Apple, sure, and signs of more income but books like The Rules (eww, by the way!), The Fountainhead, To Hell With That, and other anti-feminist works.
I mention this not least because the very feminist Jill Filipovic of Feministe is pretty femme and the *very* anti-feminist Mrs. Kim du Toit (married to the aggressive MRA Kim du Toit) is not at all.
For the record I think it’s important to recognize the principle of Kierarchy (the systematic domination anywhere by any sort of elite.) The issue is that Belledame is actually further marginalized in the sense that you mainstream “radfems” don’t acknowledge her BDSM-oriented lesbianism. Which, after watching various interactions over the last couple of years, seems to be the trigger for her “trolls.” And in the tradition of all privilege, mainstream “radfem” feminists fail to distinguish *her* bitter resentment of marginalization for from any other kind of opposition, with the result that *she* gets lumped in with Rush Limbaugh. (It’s sort of like if Eleanor Smeale didn’t recognize that Twisty Faster thinks NOW is too *conservative* and so dismissed her and her readers as indistinguishable from Rush Limbaugh’s dittoheads. You’d be angry about that. Belledame seems to be angry when others make the same mistake about her.)
That doesn’t mean her criticism is right or wrong, it just explains why she gets so apoplectic about what she perceives as just more privileged dismissal.
figleaf (who’s not sure he counts as feminist but is passionately anti-anti-feminist.)
For the record, I’m perfectly aware that the slams on me have to do with my reputation more than my actual quotes here. Although I don’t recall personally encountering either Lara or Otha before. Anyway.
Turning the snark machine off for a moment, then,
>>I mention this not least because the very feminist Jill Filipovic of Feministe is pretty femme and the *very* anti-feminist Mrs. Kim du Toit (married to the aggressive MRA Kim du Toit) is not at all.>>
Yeah. That. And again: Camille Paglia: dead butch. Catherine MacKinnon: fairly successful as these things go. Yeah, image matters to some degree, but again: when it comes to political anti-feminism, it’s what’s INSIDE the books that really sells. Cleavage alone only gets you so far (does anyone even know what Elizabeth Wurtzel is doing these days?); and again, Rush Limbaugh far outsells any of these people…
And, well, there’s this, and then there’s the celeb post and its follow-up, I can’t help noticing, and–as I said more snarkily elsewhere: really not seeing how this is much different from classic…well, bluntly, yeah: sexism. Internalized or otherwise. I mean, I don’t think I’m the only one here to notice that there’s a theme here, not just yours:
And yeah, the heterocentricity of the whole thing irks, figleaf’s sort of correct there: I honestly do not understand why there’s this much emphasis on what is or isn’t attractive to men, period. I mean, if you’re spending all your time thinking about what men think, you’re…still spending all your time thinking about what men think. Seriously, why do you care? Why does it -matter- to a -radical feminist- that Scarlett Johanssen is conventionally sexually attractive, for heaven’s sake? What -exactly- is she threatening? How is it feminist to sneer at a photo of her looking “vacuous” and make it about -her- instead of at least “oo, bad photo there” (because of course, again, if she’s pretty, she can’t possibly have a thought in her head; because it’s just too threatening for a woman to be smart -and- attractive, and this attitude is not at all misogynist…)
And really, do you think no woman ever looks at another woman and instead of envying her, just thinks: wow, she’s beautiful, I -like- looking at her? Sexually or otherwise?
And since when are Aretha Franklin and Billie Holliday -not- sexual, for heaven’s sake? Have you listened to a Billie Holliday record recently? Seen her photos? And I happen to think Aretha is hot as hell. Why is this a zero-sum game, anyway? How is the existence of Beyonce (who I don’t love, and is no Aretha, true enough, but isn’t exactly incapable of singing either) threatening their legacy? I honestly don’t get this. If you want to talk about pop music sucking nowadays, talk about the corporate Blob-ification of the Industry, sure, that’s real and recent enough; but that’s hardly the fault of the women they prefer to keep on the front covers.
And if you really think media was -less- sexist or difficult for women to succeed on their “talent” in the dear dim days before everything was quite so…what’s the trendy term? “pornified?” …really, no. Just: no. I’d -really- be here all night if I were going to go into all the ways that that’s just…No.
Feminist magazines that aren’t really feminist at all? I don’t see why a feminist magazine would be interested in promoting negative stereotypes about women, even if it is in the name of humor. It’s not just the “femme” issue that bothers me. It’s also that anti-feminist writers are positioned as pretty/brainless, while feminist writers are positioned as smart/unattractive. As if what we really need is perpetuating those kinds of stereotypes, either about us (feminists) or women in general.
There are other options than being pretty/dumb or smart/unattractive, just like how you look and how you think don’t necessarily exclude you from feminism or anti-feminism. This is something that feminists in general agree upon, even when it comes to categorizing women we usually disagree with as vacant fools. I just don’t think this is a very feminist cartoon, and I don’t think it would go over well in a feminist magazine.
Maybe a misogynist periodical would be more receptive?
I can’t believe you are not offended by the truth of the blonde “anti-feminist writer” image. Just watch TV for a week non-stop. You will see that the “uniform” for any female humans who want to be seen as ‘successful’ or ‘worthy’ all wear the exact same uniform that the blonde in cartoon is wearing. But those types of women are the women who “conform” to what women are “supposed” to be, which is VERY anti-feminist! Real women wear SLEEVES. Real women don’t HAVE to show bare arms, bare legs and be completely made-up with makeup and hair to add value to a social or work situation. THAT is the difference between “types” of women that this cartoon is calling attention to, and thank Gawd someone did! Most women just adhere to the status quo standard and don’t even question how they themselves are complicit in “the female condition” by their very own actions!
Greetings! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a team of
volunteers and starting a new project in a community in the same niche.
Your blog provided us useful information to work on.
You have done a wonderful job!
Very great post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have truly loved surfing around your weblog posts. In any case I will be subscribing for your feed and I am hoping you write once more soon!
I thought the cartoon was hilarious. I am a feminist writer, and the artist certainly captured exactly what my life looks like. As for people who think that “putting down” other women is not a very feminist (or pro-feminism) thing to do, I disagree. SO many women play right into the hands of what men and media DEFINE women to be, instead of finding their own brain and their own fashion identity. There are TONS of women out there (the latest being Miley Cyrus) who think that slutting it up is a form of female-empowerment. The bottom line: Men cover themselves from head to toe and deny women “sexual equality” because they are convinced that only women are the sex objects of the planet. And guess who validates that belief more than anyone? Women!
Until women realize that breasts are every bit as sexual as penises (maybe even more so), women will never have sexual equality.