Derail from Political Rant Funny Images II

[Toni]

And also for the record, I personally do not have a particular need to be heard by anyone in particular. All women and girls need to be heard by all men. And all men need to call out depictions of brutality against women and children for entertainment and condemn them.

Ludicrous. But, the art world survived angry feminists and it'll survive you.

In one post you are calling for an artist to realize your artistic/political ambitions by depicting a screaming male child and a woman wearing his foreskin in her face

And in the next you think only radical feminists, of which Angry and I certainly are two—would be offended by or opposed by depictions of women and children being abused and raped.

I’m disgusted but not surprised by your penis worship and utter and complete disregard for women and children.

What on earth are you talking about?

In one post, I propose collaborating on some art.

In another post, Angry Feminist says all men need to condemn art she doesn't like.

I am disgusted but not surprised that you would libellously misrepresent me.

(Also, apparently asking adults not to mutilate the genitals of babies is 'penis worship'. That is a fucking sick thing to say, Toni.)

I’m talking about your posts. Their content. You have an extreme negative reaction to a widely practiced medical procedure

Yes, I have an extreme negative reaction to parents mutilating the genitals of their babies.

—and see no problem with depictions of women and children being abused and raped as entertainment.

and I would so no problem with depictions of men being abused and raped as entertainment, either.

I don't dictate to other people what they should watch or the art they be allowed to create.

And you gave misnamed another poster, which I believe is a TOU violation. (Maybe not-it’s late and I’m not bothering to look it up tonight)

Yes, I did accidentally misname Angry Floof, because I see her screen name and automatically register it as 'Angry Feminist' (though she claims she isn't angry even though she made it part of her screen name). So, I apologise for that but I would also point out that discussing TOU violations is a TOU violation, and you should alert moderators directly.

You express extreme distress at the idea any man might be asked an uncomfortable question

No I didn't. I didn't express 'extreme distress'.

and could care less about how girls and women feel —about anything.

Hi American. 'Could care less' means I care at least a little. You almost certainly mean 'I couldn't care less', which is false.

However, I do not prioritise the feelings of people by sex or 'gender'.

Your feelings are precious—and anyone else’s are open for ridicule and insult. In fact, you cry libel if you don’t like how other people view your words.

I point out when people misrepresent my view, as you often do, despite my having expressed my views, often multiple times, in whatever thread you misrepresent them in.

I am glad that you went back and edited Angry’s name.

 

[Angry Floof]

The cartoon however, is not aimed at mocking women or girls. The reason it is a girl has been provided an explanation.

No one said it's aimed at mocking women or girls. At least I didn't. I asked if the imagery elicited anything other than laughter.

Your explanation is after-the-fact bullshit as I noted earlier. It's not a matter of me agreeing with it. It's a matter of it being utter bullshit. No Republican is going to change their mind about misogynistic laws based on that image no matter how depraved it is even if they by chance should see it from within their bubble.

And that is quite possibly true. However, the explanation isn't remotely BS.

Of course it is. Do you really believe, or think I will believe, that whoever made that cartoon did it with the expectation that Republicans will see it at all much less change their minds because of it?

It explains the who, what, and why.

It can do all of that without imagery of a child getting her body ripped apart. The who, what, and why is clear and would be clear without that particular image. That level of bloody violence against a little girl is not necessary for presenting the who, what, and why of the political cartoon. We have been over this. The image is gratuitous. Do you think no one will comprehend the word "uterus" without the image of a bloody one having been ripped out of a small child? Is that what you're saying?

That you find it goes way too far is an opinion, of which many will likely agree. But it doesn't erase what the cartoon is actually presenting and why.

What? Who's talking about erasing what it's actually presenting and why? I've made the specific point repeatedly that the imagery does NOT need to be horrific in order for the who, what, and why to be quite clearly presented. No gratuitous cruelty required. The opposite of "erased." And I agree with the political view it represents. You're not making sense.

They're not going to relate to it. But I can tell you what demographic will relate to images of girls and women being brutalized.

I think the fight over the woman's uterus is certainly much more brutal than that cartoon could ever be.

Ya think? "This other thing is more important" is a pretty lame escape route. The fight over women's uteruses is brutal and so is the sea of violent imagery of girls and women being brutalized that women and girls swim in. This thread is about the latter, and not about the other related topic. This thread is not about the cartoon's political message and it's not about misogynistic laws. I haven't seen any disagreement on those topics and they're not what this thread is about.

I now see that had I instead found an equally horrific image of brutalization of women and girls within Republican cartoons or commentary, I would find nothing but open armed agreement here.

It is a physical and psychological attack against women.

No shit. So is a world full of ever increasingly violent messages and imagery of women and girls being brutalized.

And unless something changes bigly on SCOTUS, access to birth control is going to sparse in a majority of states... and no one is going to give a fucking damn about this cartoon.

Right now, no one gives a fucking damn about women and girls being brutalized by men or about women and girls swimming in images and messages of women and girls being brutalized by men.

Do you think there could be a connection?

I don't know what you're defending.

 

[Toni]

I truly don't think that men get it: The constant images and content that depicts women and girls being raped and abused, or raped and abused prostitutes is just disgusting. A significant portion of the male population loses its mind over circumcision ---and just yawns and/or gets a tiny thrill from rape of women as entertainment. I mean, obviously everyone thinks that rape is really really bad--but doesn't it give good men a chance to ride in on their white horses and 'get' the bad guys? And if the woman is pretty enough, and not too damaged, to love her anyway?

I know half of you think I'm exaggerating but think about blockbusters and exactly how male dominated they are and just how often they depict, in some way, violence against women, especially sexual violence. And get awards for it. How many films have male only casts, or male only except for the rape victim and/or prostitute---and are seen as art. A female centered film is a chic flic. Male centered are not dick flics--they are art.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That you find it goes way too far is an opinion, of which many will likely agree. But it doesn't erase what the cartoon is actually presenting and why.

What? Who's talking about erasing what it's actually presenting and why? I've made the specific point repeatedly that the imagery does NOT need to be horrific in order for the who, what, and why to be quite clearly presented.

That is a subjective opinion which you are completely in your right to have. However, you are mistaking it for objective fact. You were upset about potential laughter on this and you wanted to know if the cartoon elicited any emotion other than laughter. You weren't happy that I provided other emotions regarding what the cartoon is symbolizing and seem intent with just ramming the point that women deal with violence... when the cartoon is symbolizing the violence.

I now see that had I instead found an equally horrific image of brutalization of women and girls within Republican cartoons or commentary, I would find nothing but open armed agreement here.

Well, that wouldn't be a cartoon, it'd be the legislation being passed in Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Texas... and soon 3/5 to 2/3 of the states in the nation.

And unless something changes bigly on SCOTUS, access to birth control is going to sparse in a majority of states... and no one is going to give a fucking damn about this cartoon.

Right now, no one gives a fucking damn about women and girls being brutalized by men or about women and girls swimming in images and messages of women and girls being brutalized by men.

Do you think there could be a connection?

I don't know what you're defending.

I'm defending the cartoonists imagery of what the GOP is doing to women in the US. I'm a huge proponent of satire, and the cartoon is only mildly satirical, if not graphic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I truly don't think that men get it: The constant images and content that depicts women and girls being raped and abused, or raped and abused prostitutes is just disgusting. A significant portion of the male population loses its mind over circumcision ---and just yawns and/or gets a tiny thrill from rape of women as entertainment. I mean, obviously everyone thinks that rape is really really bad--but doesn't it give good men a chance to ride in on their white horses and 'get' the bad guys? And if the woman is pretty enough, and not too damaged, to love her anyway?

I know half of you think I'm exaggerating but think about blockbusters and exactly how male dominated they are and just how often they depict, in some way, violence against women, especially sexual violence. And get awards for it. How many films have male only casts, or male only except for the rape victim and/or prostitute---and are seen as art. A female centered film is a chic flic. Male centered are not dick flics--they are art.

Isn't this getting into a completely different topic of how men and their relation to women are portrayed in films? I remember Brian63 raising this exact complaint in M&PC about Han Solo like characters getting the girl in the end. The guy is ruthless, a jackass, rude, but gets the Princess in the end... you help to blow up one Death Star that erases all of that the misogyny.

And yes, this is an issue in media (and in the real world). In It Happened One Night, our protagonist trying to convince himself that he loves the female lead, tells her father, she needs a guy that'll smack her, even when she doesn't need it. I mean, talk about getting hit in the head with a sledgehammer. See my review of Pretty Women the musical in M&PC. *sigh* We've come a long way, but we aren't close to any level of where it should be.

And it gets worse with media. You have a bunch of women in a movie and a lot of people get upset. Have a female lead in Star Wars, people get upset. Captain Marvel... people trolling like all heck. It was novel in the beginning, but what it appears to be is that a decent number of people can't handle female or non-white male leads in anything. Female 007, it was like Oxygen was eliminated from the planet! Turning Red, a movie made by women describing the experience of coming of age as a girl... the same bullshit from the same people. Yes, this is a problem!

But the cartoon isn't normalizing any of this. It is accusing the GOP of usurping the reproductive rights of woman for themselves. It does this by symbolizing the uterus quite literally for the reproductive rights. This isn't a cartoon indicating anything else.

 

[Toni]

I truly don't think that men get it: The constant images and content that depicts women and girls being raped and abused, or raped and abused prostitutes is just disgusting. A significant portion of the male population loses its mind over circumcision ---and just yawns and/or gets a tiny thrill from rape of women as entertainment. I mean, obviously everyone thinks that rape is really really bad--but doesn't it give good men a chance to ride in on their white horses and 'get' the bad guys? And if the woman is pretty enough, and not too damaged, to love her anyway?

I know half of you think I'm exaggerating but think about blockbusters and exactly how male dominated they are and just how often they depict, in some way, violence against women, especially sexual violence. And get awards for it. How many films have male only casts, or male only except for the rape victim and/or prostitute---and are seen as art. A female centered film is a chic flic. Male centered are not dick flics--they are art.

Isn't this getting into a completely different topic of how men and their relation to women are portrayed in films? I remember Brian63 raising this exact complaint in M&PC about Han Solo like characters getting the girl in the end. The guy is ruthless, a jackass, rude, but gets the Princess in the end... you help to blow up one Death Star that erases all of that the misogyny.

And yes, this is an issue in media (and in the real world). In It Happened One Night, our protagonist trying to convince himself that he loves the female lead, tells her father, she needs a guy that'll smack her, even when she doesn't need it. I mean, talk about getting hit in the head with a sledgehammer. See my review of Pretty Women the musical in M&PC. *sigh* We've come a long way, but we aren't close to any level of where it should be.

But the cartoon isn't normalizing any of this. It is accusing the GOP of usurping the reproductive rights of woman for themselves. It does this by symbolizing the uterus quite literally for the reproductive rights. This isn't a cartoon indicating anything else.

For me: it’s part and parcel of the same misogyny.

Moreover, I think the cartoon fails: it’s ripping a uterus out of a girl. More apt would be depicting the girl as a uterus ( and a pair of ovaries). After all, while the extreme right wing sees little value to anything female except to serve its sexual and reproductive needs, removing the uterus would be a form of birth control. That’s bad.

 

[TomC]

For me: it’s part and parcel of the same misogyny.

I cannot understand this.
It's viciously mocking the misogyny of current Texan law. Yes, it's graphic. But that's what's going on in that cartoon.

You are lumping it in with all misogynistic imagery everywhere? Sorry, I don't find that rational.
It's like complaining about vaccination because vaccines give you the illness it's protecting you from getting. Or complaining about me referring to Clinton as Godzillary and explaining that it summed up why I voted for her. I just don't understand your opinions on this.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd say it isn't compatible as the media aspect is discussing how misogyny is acceptable because the girl will wear down, verses the cartoon which is not indicating the violence is acceptable.

 

[Toni]

For me: it’s part and parcel of the same misogyny.

I cannot understand this.
It's viciously mocking the misogyny of current Texan law. Yes, it's graphic. But that's what's going on in that cartoon.

You are lumping it in with all misogynistic imagery everywhere? Sorry, I don't find that rational.
It's like complaining about vaccination because vaccines give you the illness it's protecting you from getting. Or complaining about me referring to Clinton as Godzillary and explaining that it summed up why I voted for her. I just don't understand your opinions on this.
Tom

It’s vicious, all right.

It uses a violent bloody image of a female, and disembodied reproductive parts. Women everyday see themselves rendered that way in real life: infantilized, crying, divorced as living human beings from their reproductive capacity, all at the hands of men who simply can. All points driven even harder by this appearing as the cover of a children’s book.

Years ago, as a teen and as a young woman, I looked years younger than my age. Because my parents strongly valued soft voices—I spoke very quietly. I was a good student—a good girl. And a fair number of guys I knew—friends who may or may not have wanted to date me, would tell dirty jokes, in a small group, assuming that they’d go right over my head.

Actually, one of my babysitting clients kept a stack of Playboys under the sofa and I loved the cartoons and humor.

So, I simply would very sweetly repeat jokes I had read:

Cartoon:
Old lady to studly cowboy:
You say you’re quick? Real quick? Back where I come from we call that premature ejaculation.

Pilot tries to seduce beautiful stewardess in his apartment. He uses the word phallus in an attempt to appear sophisticated and urbane. She says: But I don’t understand? What’s a phallus? He responds: Well my dear, I guess I’ll just have to show you. And he does. Her eyes get bigger abs she says: Oh, I get it. It’s just like a penis only smaller!



Guy talks to his psychiatrist: Doc, I keep having this compulsion to fuck this goat. I don’t know why I do it! Can you help me?

Psychiatrist: is the goat male or female?

Guy: Female! What do you think I am, a pervert?

Not a single guy laughed. Not one.
But they did quit telling dirty jokes in front of me.

Again: these jokes were from Playboy. Somehow coming from me, they didn’t land the same.

 

[TomC]

Not a single guy laughed. Not one.
But they did quit telling dirty jokes in front of me.

Again: these jokes were from Playboy. Somehow coming from me, they didn’t land the same.

I think you misunderstood what happened.
Speaking as a guy, about your age, with nothing to go on but your anecdote...

I'll bet what really happened was simple. The guys realized that telling dirty jokes around you was reducing their chances of getting laid. If you understood those jokes you were in the realm of possibility. But telling more of them, and probably worse ones, wasn't improving their chances of acting on the biological imperative.

I could be wrong, but I know a lot about the male of the species.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For me: it’s part and parcel of the same misogyny.

I cannot understand this.
It's viciously mocking the misogyny of current Texan law. Yes, it's graphic. But that's what's going on in that cartoon.

You are lumping it in with all misogynistic imagery everywhere? Sorry, I don't find that rational.
It's like complaining about vaccination because vaccines give you the illness it's protecting you from getting. Or complaining about me referring to Clinton as Godzillary and explaining that it summed up why I voted for her. I just don't understand your opinions on this.
Tom

It’s vicious, all right.

It uses a violent bloody image of a female, and disembodied reproductive parts. Women everyday see themselves rendered that way in real life: infantilized, crying, divorced as living human beings from their reproductive capacity, all at the hands of men who simply can. All points driven even harder by this appearing as the cover of a children’s book.

That's the point.

 

[Toni]

Not a single guy laughed. Not one.
But they did quit telling dirty jokes in front of me.

Again: these jokes were from Playboy. Somehow coming from me, they didn’t land the same.

I think you misunderstood what happened.
Speaking as a guy, about your age, with nothing to go on but your anecdote...

I'll bet what really happened was simple. The guys realized that telling dirty jokes around you was reducing their chances of getting laid. If you understood those jokes you were in the realm of possibility. But telling more of them, and probably worse ones, wasn't improving their chances of acting on the biological imperative.

I could be wrong, but I know a lot about the male of the species.
Tom

As it turns out, one of the guys was getting laid—by me.

He didn’t laugh.

Unrelated or maybe related: it turns out he didn’t laugh very much at anything. He took himself very—very seriously, something that wasn’t apparent at first. I was fooled by a lot of things, but especially that small self-deprecating laugh he’d give occasionally when people were poking fun at each other.. That really wasn’t a laugh as it turns out, but also as it turned out, was the best he could or would do.

Relationship did not work out.

Epilogue: I later dated a guy who DID laugh at these jokes. We’ve been married a long long time now.

 

[Toni]

For me: it’s part and parcel of the same misogyny.

I cannot understand this.
It's viciously mocking the misogyny of current Texan law. Yes, it's graphic. But that's what's going on in that cartoon.

You are lumping it in with all misogynistic imagery everywhere? Sorry, I don't find that rational.
It's like complaining about vaccination because vaccines give you the illness it's protecting you from getting. Or complaining about me referring to Clinton as Godzillary and explaining that it summed up why I voted for her. I just don't understand your opinions on this.
Tom

It’s vicious, all right.

It uses a violent bloody image of a female, and disembodied reproductive parts. Women everyday see themselves rendered that way in real life: infantilized, crying, divorced as living human beings from their reproductive capacity, all at the hands of men who simply can. All points driven even harder by this appearing as the cover of a children’s book.

That's the point.

Yes. And that’s why I find it horrifying in a way that I don’t think men can quite understand. Even nice men who like women.

 

[TomC]

As it turns out, one of the guys was getting laid—by me.

He didn’t laugh.

You didn't mention that in your anecdote.

But you're kinda making my point for me.

You really don't understand what's going on inside the head of other people. Especially a female trying to understand the minds and motivations of males(under certain circumstances).
Males aren't any more rational, it's a human thing.

Viewing male behavior through the lens of radical feminism isn't particularly useful. It's counterproductive. But it happens a lot. That's what I see going on here.

I wonder. If AOC had done that cartoon would there be as much outrage? I doubt it. I can well imagine her doing it. She's a strong and sophisticated woman, no delicate flower, I could see her chuckling at it if she saw it in The Atlantic or something.
Would it still be wrong to chuckle if it's AOC doing it?
Tom

 

[Toni]

As it turns out, one of the guys was getting laid—by me.

He didn’t laugh.

You didn't mention that in your anecdote.

But you're kinda making my point for me.

You really don't understand what's going on inside the head of other people. Especially a female trying to understand the minds and motivations of males(under certain circumstances).
Males aren't any more rational, it's a human thing.

Viewing male behavior through the lens of radical feminism isn't particularly useful. It's counterproductive. But it happens a lot. That's what I see going on here.

I wonder. If AOC had done that cartoon would there be as much outrage? I doubt it. I can well imagine her doing it. She's a strong and sophisticated woman, no delicate flower, I could see her chuckling at it if she saw it in The Atlantic or something.
Would it still be wrong to chuckle if it's AOC doing it?
Tom

I don’t really care if AOC or Hillary or Elizabeth Warren or RBG ( May her memory be a blessing) would laugh or chuckle.

You make my point for me: Men not only don’t understand, they absolutely do not care and see it as their absolute right to not understand and to not care what is going through the mind of a woman who sees such an image.

Y’all are still acting as though women are going to continue to take male as standard: what appeals to men, their sensibilities, their needs and desires, their sense of humor, their sense of self, their foibles ( which must be overlooked and cleverly but secretly shoring things up and smoothing things over so HE doesn’t feel exposed or foolish or weak —nothing is quite so dangerous as a man who feels too exposed or foolish or weak), compensating, accommodating mens wants needs desires as more important than our own, as tantamount to absolutely everything else.

Think about it this way: the slap. THAT slap. When Will smith struck Chris Rick for making a joke at his wife’s expense. Hey, I got the joke and even get the compliment embedded: You, Jada Pinkett Smith are a warrior! Not a middle aged woman with an autoimmune disease that is cruelly hurting her looks, her pride, her marketability! her crowning glory! Never mind that GI Jane was a plebeian soldier. You are a warrior queen!

And we can all laugh at this one tiny flaw. ‘Cuz you strong!

But the joke did not land that way for Jada. Rock, who famously made a documentary called Good Hair really should have known that this would cut just a bit too close to the bone for her to laugh at.

And this cartoon cuts too close to the bone for me to laugh at.

Not every political cartoon is supposed to get a laugh.

But y’all will find the humor in anything that doesn’t frighten or horrify or threaten YOU.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For me: it’s part and parcel of the same misogyny.

I cannot understand this.
It's viciously mocking the misogyny of current Texan law. Yes, it's graphic. But that's what's going on in that cartoon.

You are lumping it in with all misogynistic imagery everywhere? Sorry, I don't find that rational.
It's like complaining about vaccination because vaccines give you the illness it's protecting you from getting. Or complaining about me referring to Clinton as Godzillary and explaining that it summed up why I voted for her. I just don't understand your opinions on this.
Tom

It’s vicious, all right.

It uses a violent bloody image of a female, and disembodied reproductive parts. Women everyday see themselves rendered that way in real life: infantilized, crying, divorced as living human beings from their reproductive capacity, all at the hands of men who simply can. All points driven even harder by this appearing as the cover of a children’s book.

That's the point.

Yes. And that’s why I find it horrifying in a way that I don’t think men can quite understand. Even nice men who like women.

I feel like we are talking about two completely different things here.

The cartoon is symbolizing the exact problem you are raising... (literally at the hands of men who simply can) and you are having the problem with the cartoon. That cartoon has my daughter on it. The GOP elephant in Ohio's GOP Gerrymandered Legislature that will be demanding his (mostly his-es) right to my daughter's reproductive system in the next year or two (uterus). My daughter isn't crying, but she doesn't understand what changes are coming... yet. I need to consider whether we need to move out of the state that was a lot more purple when I moved here.

The cartoon is dead-on perfect symbolism of what is happening.

 

[Toni]

For me: it’s part and parcel of the same misogyny.

I cannot understand this.
It's viciously mocking the misogyny of current Texan law. Yes, it's graphic. But that's what's going on in that cartoon.

You are lumping it in with all misogynistic imagery everywhere? Sorry, I don't find that rational.
It's like complaining about vaccination because vaccines give you the illness it's protecting you from getting. Or complaining about me referring to Clinton as Godzillary and explaining that it summed up why I voted for her. I just don't understand your opinions on this.
Tom

It’s vicious, all right.

It uses a violent bloody image of a female, and disembodied reproductive parts. Women everyday see themselves rendered that way in real life: infantilized, crying, divorced as living human beings from their reproductive capacity, all at the hands of men who simply can. All points driven even harder by this appearing as the cover of a children’s book.

That's the point.

Yes. And that’s why I find it horrifying in a way that I don’t think men can quite understand. Even nice men who like women.

I feel like we are talking about two completely different things here.

The cartoon is symbolizing the exact problem you are raising... (literally at the hands of men who simply can) and you are having the problem with the cartoon. That cartoon has my daughter on it. The GOP elephant in Ohio's GOP Gerrymandered Legislature that will be demanding his (mostly his-es) right to my daughter's reproductive system in the next year or two (uterus). My daughter isn't crying, but she doesn't understand what changes are coming... yet. I need to consider whether we need to move out of the state that was a lot more purple when I moved here.

The cartoon is dead-on perfect symbolism of what is happening.

It’s fine as a political cartoon. It’s offensive and it’s meant to be offensive—that is it’s point.

The fact that some are defending its ‘humor’ is very offensive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I feel like we are talking about two completely different things here.

The cartoon is symbolizing the exact problem you are raising... (literally at the hands of men who simply can) and you are having the problem with the cartoon. That cartoon has my daughter on it. The GOP elephant in Ohio's GOP Gerrymandered Legislature that will be demanding his (mostly his-es) right to my daughter's reproductive system in the next year or two (uterus). My daughter isn't crying, but she doesn't understand what changes are coming... yet. I need to consider whether we need to move out of the state that was a lot more purple when I moved here.

The cartoon is dead-on perfect symbolism of what is happening.

It’s fine as a political cartoon. It’s offensive and it’s meant to be offensive—that is it’s point.

The fact that some are defending its ‘humor’ is very offensive.

The humor is the normalization of the GOP mindset on this via a children's book. That the GOP is so bloody backwards, that this is what girls will need to be taught is how things are. How is the method of exposing that offensive?

 

[TomC]

It’s fine as a political cartoon. It’s offensive and it’s meant to be offensive—that is it’s point.

The fact that some are defending its ‘humor’ is very offensive.

I'm trying to understand what you're expressing here.

"Humor" is a very complex human reaction. Complex to the point of irrational and even chaotic.
I wouldn't laugh at that image the way I laughed at Rose Nyland besting Blanche Devereau.* But they're both feminist jokes. Just on different levels.
Tom

*Google sitcom "The Golden Girls" for more information about Rose, Blanche, Dorothy, and Sophia. If if you didn't get my reference, I'm telling you, it's worth it!

 

[Toni]

It’s fine as a political cartoon. It’s offensive and it’s meant to be offensive—that is it’s point.

The fact that some are defending its ‘humor’ is very offensive.

I'm trying to understand what you're expressing here.

"Humor" is a very complex human reaction. Complex to the point of irrational and even chaotic.
I wouldn't laugh at that image the way I laughed at Rose Nyland besting Blanche Devereau.* But they're both feminist jokes. Just on different levels.
Tom

*Google sitcom "The Golden Girls" for more information about Rose, Blanche, Dorothy, and Sophia. If if you didn't get my reference, I'm telling you, it's worth it!

I see it as on par with the proposed cartoon Metaphor wants to commission: A woman's face covered by a baby's foreskin. Horrific.

I'm familiar with the Golden Girls. I preferred Designing Women, especially the take down of Ray Don and also the Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia.

12 Best Julia Sugarbaker Quotes On 'Designing Women'

Julia Sugarbaker, television's beloved outspoken Southern woman, was known for her ruthless rants. Read on for her best quotes on 'Designing Women'.

www.southernliving.com