Talk

Advanced search

If I used breast imagery in a pictorial political satire i.e. David Cameron’s face looks like a tit, is it unacceptable and like the use of breast imagery in a lads mag?

(136 Posts)
Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 00:33:45

?

mamas12 Sat 04-Jun-11 00:50:35

I object to the fact that womens bodies - breasts - are used in a derogatory manner. To call someone a tit is belittling women and you should use a a cock tbh. to use his own genitalia to insult him
The breast imagary is exactly the same. bringing womens bodies down to the level of insult.
So yes to answer your qustion yes.

dittany Sat 04-Jun-11 10:11:09

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 12:20:27

You have played into a right wing agenda well done, I am a female satirist and will be censored too see www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/03/cameron-backed-report-commercialisation-childhood

chibi Sat 04-Jun-11 12:28:13

These are proposals, they are not law

It isn't censorship, rather age restriction - videos, magazines, websites etc will still be,able to contain sexual content but it will be less available to children

What are your objections to these proposals motherfunster?

AliceWhirled Sat 04-Jun-11 12:31:44

You'll be censored from using parts of a women's body to insult people? I'm not sure whether that is true but I don't give a flying fuck even if it is. I'm sure you can think of another word to use. If you're a female satirist I'm sure you can come up with some others. There are quite a few words around, and some of them are not sexist.

So if the right end up legislating on things feminists agree with, from a different starting point, we should then abandon what we think. hmm

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 12:50:46

Just like Australia where they ‘blocked’ adult content in a drive similar to this they knocked out wikileaks.Way to go sisterhood.

chibi Sat 04-Jun-11 12:58:21

Knocked out wikileaks how? What are you talking about? Do you not need to be coherent to he a satirist? Apols if wrong...

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 13:03:52

Wikileaks in adult content block in OZ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/mar/19/wikileaks-banned-australian-websites

As a woman who has broken into a completely male dominated media I consider my actions to be from a very deeply held feminist ethic. These proposals will result in my work being censored. Fucken great. You will be aware of the satirical cartoon tradition which is vulgar and filled with toilet humour, this is a fail on epic proportions, this is moralising in the guise of feminism.

This will affect freedom of speech.

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 13:04:30

That link again www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/mar/19/wikileaks-banned-australian-websites

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 13:11:09

Oh yea not to mention all the gay and lesban sites that were knocked out by the OZ 'Adult content' block too.

chibi Sat 04-Jun-11 13:11:50

I am really having trouble following you. Does your work currently appear in publications aimed at children? Are your satirical cartoons on their clothes? Do you make satirical videos featuring pop stars gyrating lasciviously to be aired pre-watershed?

None of these proposals appear to have anything to do with satirical cartoons.

If on the other hand your DC-as-tit cartoon was due to grace the next issue of CBeebies magazine, then you have a right to be concerned.

Or not. These proposals carry no legal weight.

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 13:12:29

But never mind you get 'nuts' in a brown paper bag, huraa..

Prolesworth Sat 04-Jun-11 13:13:10

Message withdrawn

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 13:15:47

@chibi I work for a national newspaper on and off that has a average daily circulation of 279,308 copies and can be found lieing around peoples houses.

chibi Sat 04-Jun-11 13:17:58

Could you draw a sketch of Swift weeping in Mencken's arms while they contemplate the crap that passes for satire these days? Can it also feature a gurning Hogarth swilling gin? I am happy for any of them to be represented by any body part you deem necessary (in the interests of press freedom and democracy).

Can you work old Tom Lehrer in there too?

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 13:18:53

Quote:
Key mesures
• Procedures to make it easier for parents to block adult and age restricted material on internet.

The have been trying to put a IPS block on the UK this is the thin edge of wedge

chibi Sat 04-Jun-11 13:21:13

Currently any old wank mag can be left lying around people's houses. They are not displayed to children in shops however, and if these proposals were to become law (if if if) neither would lad mags.

What happens to them post purchase is another story, and not a subject of any of these proposals, as far as i can see.

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 13:24:43

Dear old Hogarth ripped off a woman Cartoonist who wrote the first book on it, he stated at the time what a lowly art form it was, two years later he was doing it himself. See blog.seattlepi.com/bookpatrol/2010/03/11/the-mother-of-pictorial-satire-or-why-did-yankee-doodle-call-his-hat-macaroni/

chibi Sat 04-Jun-11 13:24:59

The measure you cite refers to parents blocking content, presumably internet content available on their home computers to users of said computer.

Or do you think that the government is going to hand over control of the internet to me, chibi, someone's mummy, to block sites from being accessed by any and all uk residents?

Because that's batshit loco.

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 13:29:31

It will be deemed too hard for mummys to work it and then 'Daddy' will have to do it for you.

Riveninside Sat 04-Jun-11 13:30:51

Why would you use a part of a womans body to insult someone or to represent a bad thing?

Motherfunster Sat 04-Jun-11 13:34:13

Because he looks like one.As well as osborns dick nose.

Riveninside Sat 04-Jun-11 13:35:59

No he doesnt. Breasts are good things. Cant say the same about daves face

chibi Sat 04-Jun-11 13:36:56

Well, the government has had ages to censor all sorts of explicit sexual material, either print or electronic (i am not referring to any material which shows criminal acts, eg abuse).

This material has been restricted for sale to persons of a certain age. These proposals run along similar lines. I really don't see how this is censorship by the back.door- if the government hasn't done so yet, why would it now? It is no further empowered to do so today than it was 5 years ago, so why is this a real threat?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now