Derail from Political Rant Funny Images II

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't/don't find the image funny at all. Seems the intended message from the artist is to characterize all people affiliated with the Texas republican party as monsters in the abortion debate. While I do find some to be insufferable idiots, I don't find characterizing a group of people by party affiliation as monsters funny either.

It's a self-selected group. If they don't agree with the GOP position why are they Republican in the first place?

Do you agree with every position of a particular political party?

You don't have to agree with every position, but you shouldn't be a part of a party where you are opposed to a major part of their position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But back to my question, which initially was to one person, but since so many others are interested, does anyone here other than me have any reaction to that image of a little girl having her uterus ripped out besides laughter?

Besides laughter? My immediate reaction was anger. At no stage did I see anything funny about it. This is a figurative depiction of what Republican Texan politicians, who are almost exclusively men (all but two of the 23 Texan members of Congress and both Senators are male) want to do; they want to be in full control of every woman's reproductive system, and it begins with what they want taught what they do not want taught to little girls at school. People who don't care so much about the issue need to be shocked and shaken out of their complacency.

This. It's meant to shock, it's not meant to be humor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Misogyny? Han Solo treats everyone badly, he doesn't single out women for bad treatment. And he's the standard trope, the bad boy who got the girl.

 

[Enigma]

I find it funny how, after more than 100 posts in this thread, the one thing that everybody here either has either explicitly stated or implicitly agreed to (by failing to reject or contest, having been given plenty of opportunity to do so) is that the gender identity of the young individual who previously had a uterus before the elephant took it away is obviously female.

 

[SLD]

Maybe an image of a little boy with his penis and testicles ripped off with blood dripping would elicit something more than laughter from you all.

It’s not meant to be funny. It’s real. It’s what Republicans in Texas are doing. It just represents it. It’s important

 

[Toni]

Your defense of the socially endorsed mutilation of baby boys is noted but is off topic, even for this split-off derail from another thread.

I could be wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time.

But I'm pretty sure you changed the subject of the thread from abortion to circumcision, as though the two things are somehow comparable.
Tom

Actually, I believe that I was the first person who brought up circumcision in this thread. (Post 40) I suggested that the only way some men would fully grasp how horrified women were by this cartoon is if there were one about child support or circumcision.

At some point later (I don’t have enough patience to look) Metaphor opined that a cartoon showing a woman’s face draped with a baby’s foreskin would be fantastic and said he’d like to commission such a drawing.

And it went down hill from there.

Sorry for the derail but I kinda called it.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I didn't.

Who brought up male circumcision?

I'm confident it wasn't me.

Tom

Shaggy made the same claim and I don't know that I believed him.

Do you mean this Shaggy?
View attachment 38037
I don't think he's a member on IIDB.
Tom

No, but he should be.

 

[Metaphor]

Your defense of the socially endorsed mutilation of baby boys is noted but is off topic, even for this split-off derail from another thread.

I could be wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time.

But I'm pretty sure you changed the subject of the thread from abortion to circumcision, as though the two things are somehow comparable.
Tom

Actually, I believe that I was the first person who brought up circumcision in this thread. (Post 40) I suggested that the only way some men would fully grasp how horrified women were by this cartoon is if there were one about child support or circumcision.

At some point later (I don’t have enough patience to look) Metaphor opined that a cartoon showing a woman’s face draped with a baby’s foreskin would be fantastic and said he’d like to commission such a drawing.

And it went down hill from there.

Sorry for the derail but I kinda called it.

Well, that's a shockingly misrepresenting take. Like you so often produce.

My cartoon idea was showing, graphically, the circumcision of a baby boy, to counter your claim that I would be 'horrified' by seeing such an image and would not support such an image being created.

 

[Toni]

Your defense of the socially endorsed mutilation of baby boys is noted but is off topic, even for this split-off derail from another thread.

I could be wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time.

But I'm pretty sure you changed the subject of the thread from abortion to circumcision, as though the two things are somehow comparable.
Tom

Actually, I believe that I was the first person who brought up circumcision in this thread. (Post 40) I suggested that the only way some men would fully grasp how horrified women were by this cartoon is if there were one about child support or circumcision.

At some point later (I don’t have enough patience to look) Metaphor opined that a cartoon showing a woman’s face draped with a baby’s foreskin would be fantastic and said he’d like to commission such a drawing.

And it went down hill from there.

Sorry for the derail but I kinda called it.

Well, that's a shockingly misrepresenting take. Like you so often produce.

My cartoon idea was showing, graphically, the circumcision of a baby boy, to counter your claim that I would be 'horrified' by seeing such an image and would not support such an image being created.

I never claimed that *you* would be horrified by anything. I mentioned two topics that at least some male posters routinely become extremely emotional about. You've used some extremely strong language in this thread re: circumcision and even apologized for your strong words (kind of). You continued using strong language. I get it. The topic really upsets you. Like Angry and I are upset by the image of a young girl with her uterus ripped out, dripping blood. It's not that we don't get what the political cartoon was saying. It's just that we think it could be said without showing violence against a young girl. Because our culture is full of various depictions of graphic violence against women and girls, generally at the hands of men.

I realize that for you, circumcision is the same level of violence or perhaps worse. You thought your cartoon would be funny. I don't. I think it would be horrifying and I also think it was somewhat deceptive for reasons I outlined upthread. Babies are not circumcised in order to provide beauty treatments for women.

I honestly don't know if you aren't reading carefully or are being ....obtuse? I have no idea. I clearly did not look for and directly quote your post about wondering if you could commission such a cartoon.

 

[Metaphor]

I never claimed that *you* would be horrified by anything. I mentioned two topics that at least some male posters routinely become extremely emotional about. You've used some extremely strong language in this thread re: circumcision and even apologized for your strong words (kind of).

It wasn't an apology. It was an explanation.

You continued using strong language. I get it. The topic really upsets you.

Yes. The continued, routine mutilation of the genitals of babies upsets me.

Like Angry and I are upset by the image of a young girl with her uterus ripped out, dripping blood.

You can be angered about an image, I suppose. But baby girls generally don't have their uteri ripped out in real life.

But baby boys literally do have their genitals mutilated in real life.

It's not that we don't get what the political cartoon was saying. It's just that we think it could be said without showing violence against a young girl. Because our culture is full of various depictions of graphic violence against women and girls, generally at the hands of men.

I realize that for you, circumcision is the same level of violence or perhaps worse.

Well yes, real violence that has happened to billions of boys is more serious than the depiction of a violent event in a cartoon that has probably never actually happened.

You thought your cartoon would be funny.

No, I didn't say it would be funny. It might be witty, if I can be that bold, but being 'funny' isn't a goal.

I don't. I think it would be horrifying and I also think it was somewhat deceptive for reasons I outlined upthread. Babies are not circumcised in order to provide beauty treatments for women.

And girls don't have their uteri literally torn out by GOP elephants.

The cartoon does not say boys are mutilated to benefit adult women. It shows one thing that happens to the product of the mutilation. Of course, I chose a byproduct of the mutilation that would not garner much sympathy. That is the point of political persuasion.

I honestly don't know if you aren't reading carefully or are being ....obtuse?

I often wonder the same when I read your posts.

 

[Metaphor]

I find it funny how, after more than 100 posts in this thread, the one thing that everybody here either has either explicitly stated or implicitly agreed to (by failing to reject or contest, having been given plenty of opportunity to do so) is that the gender identity of the young individual who previously had a uterus before the elephant took it away is obviously female.

Oh, you'll never get them to admit they ought not have assumed the little girl portrayed in the image was, in fact, a girl. They called her a girl and assumed she was a girl just because she had a uterus!

All of them transphobes.

 

[Gospel]

I find it funny how, after more than 100 posts in this thread, the one thing that everybody here either has either explicitly stated or implicitly agreed to (by failing to reject or contest, having been given plenty of opportunity to do so) is that the gender identity of the young individual who previously had a uterus before the elephant took it away is obviously female.

Oh, you'll never get them to admit they ought not have assumed the little girl portrayed in the image was, in fact, a girl. They called her a girl and assumed she was a girl just because she had a uterus!

All of them transphobes.

I'm not sure that would change the overall argument that the image is not funny (to some of us). If anything, we'd be rightfully corrected if the artist made the clarification and would adjust accordingly. Ya know, that which should be done in real life with little to no impact on personal freedoms. I think it's safe to presume when depicting Texas lawmakers, that the image is of a girl since Texas lawmakers aren't widely known for being a beacon of LGBTQ acceptance.

 

[Angry Floof]

Maybe an image of a little boy with his penis and testicles ripped off with blood dripping would elicit something more than laughter from you all.

It’s not meant to be funny. It’s real. It’s what Republicans in Texas are doing. It just represents it. It’s important

I agree, and images of bloody violence against little girls are not necessary to that message. We already fucking know. It's preaching to the choir while also traumatizing it.

Not at all required, and astounding at how zealously men will defend the unnecessarily bloody version. You don't need to punch women and girls in the face to show the world that it's wrong to punch women and girls in the face.

 

[TomC]

You don't need to punch women and girls in the face to show the world that it's wrong to punch women and girls in the face.

I have a higher opinion of women as a whole than to think a political cartoon resembles a punch in the face.

The cartoon is mocking derision. Graphic. Needed.

Unfortunately, that horrible Texan legislation has not been treated with the mocking derision it deserves. That's why it's spreading, rather than being quietly ignored and overruled. As far as I can tell, it's still a political winner for Abbott & Co. We need more such messages out there, not less.

And you know that this is coming from someone who does not consider feticide a human right. I'm still all about pulling out the stops in opposition to the current Texan law.
Tom

 

[Toni]

You don't need to punch women and girls in the face to show the world that it's wrong to punch women and girls in the face.

I have a higher opinion of women as a whole than to think a political cartoon resembles a punch in the face.

The cartoon is mocking derision. Graphic. Needed.

Unfortunately, that horrible Texan legislation has not been treated with the mocking derision it deserves. That's why it's spreading, rather than being quietly ignored and overruled. As far as I can tell, it's still a political winner for Abbott & Co. We need more such messages out there, not less.

And you know that this is coming from someone who does not consider feticide a human right. I'm still all about pulling out the stops in opposition to the current Texan law.
Tom

You are, however, not a woman. My visceral reaction to that image was perhaps not quite as strong as Floof’s but I absolutely did blanch when I saw the image. Depicting a uterus ripped from a child’s body is absolutely not necessary to convey the horror of what the state of Texas and other states are inflicting upon women. Not only that, but to me, it’s actually specious: making a valid point on the surface but actually deceptive: the GOP in Texas is not attempting to remove the womb of women, much less girl children.

What you and others defending the cartoon are doing is to tell Floof and others, like me, who have a strong visceral reaction—who feel not just horrified but assaulted by this image is: Your feelings are not valid. You’re just being too sensitive. Get over it.

I typed out and erased at least three times a description of a fictional political cartoon that is decrying anti-gay violence—using an image that referenced Matthew Shepard—and I just could not. It was too horrifying and I would not intentionally do something that would cause you or anyone else such horror and pain.

And if such a political cartoon was shown here and you or anyone else reacted to it as strongly as some have reacted to the cartoon in this thread—I sure as hell would not tell you that it was funny, you just didn’t get it or that it was necessary.