Private Eye Cartoon

[shiklah]

Made me laugh, thought I'd share

They don't, OlennasWimple. Neither are they homogeneous groups of people with identikit views. I'm surprised that the 'woke' are okay with such sweeping generalisations.

I was hoping that Wakame would talk us through their thought process. But Wakame doesn't seem to want to do that.

Was the 'joke' in that first cartoon from Wakame supposed to be that the 'radical feminist' looked stereotypically feminine and the 'conservative Christian' didn't? anyone would think women were judged by their appearance or summit.

Summat. My spellchecker is regionalist and doesn't speak Northern.

Wakame's first link is to a cartoon by Barry Deutsch (Ampersand), a man that kept a liberal "feminist" blog which was very hostile to radical feminists. After building an audience mostly based on the fact he was a man talking about feminism (always more valuable than a woman talking about it..) he sold his site to a porn company.
www.reclusiveleftist.com/2006/10/10/okay-this-is-too-much/

This is the authority wakame goes to when they want to claim knowledge of feminism

Wakame's next linked cartoon was by Kevin Moore, a man who had heard rumours of Louis CK abusing women for years but needed "a well-reported story using standard journalistic methods of sourcing" before he was willing to be 'disappointed' by him:

mooretoons.com/comic/fetch-2017/creeps/

Again, an expert in feminism and women's rights, obviously. Interesting that wakame's links are to men having a go at women for being unaccepting of males in their private spaces. Interesting, or standard misogynist bullshit, you decide!

Oh and I may as well add a link to this brilliant analysis of the source of Wakame's first cartoon, Everyday Meninism Feminism, by Magdalen Berns.

Wakame, expert on feminism, here to put us all straight! It must be a slow day on the Guardian's comments sections.

The Radical Feminists are evil because they agree with the religious right is a trope left over from the anti pornstitution fight. Though it is coming around again with the d00dbroz arguing that women being raped twenty times a day is just like working at fast food so rape and trafficking should be legalized.
These days the transgender advocates and the religious right agree that transitioning away the Gay and Lesbians is a good and worthy goal.

I have never understood the position that agreeing with the right or left on one issue invalidates all your other opinions or makes you 'bad' somehow. I always thought that if 2 disparate sides agree on something being wrong, then maybe it really is wrong. For example, here on MN, and I hope they won't mind me mentioning them, Lass and Beachcomber often clash except when it comes to threads about prostitution. Then watching them come together to take down punters is lovely. And if I didn't already think so, the fact that 2 very different people agree on this would make me think that it probably was a universal bad thing.

I am not sure I am making sense but maybe someone will get what I am saying.

Ah, a lovely bit of Magdalen to kick start my day.

(Disparate views which converge on a single issue are so interesting - I always sit up and take notice when Varoufakis and the Torygraph's economics editor come up with the same analysis of a situation).

Btw if anyone else has a Torygraph subscription I can recommend the "Alex" cartoon in the business pages. It's been quietly lampooning Stephen/Stephanie for a couple of years now. Gentle under-the-radar GC humour about the internal inconsistencies and the impacts on women. There's a great one where Steph is twirling in a new trouser suit and one of the women raises an eyebrow. Steph launches into a "transwomen don't have to perform femininity" speech, only for the woman to reply " no, it's not that, it's just that as Stephen you were the one who vetoed our request to wear trousers in the workplace a couple of years ago."

You’re all mean - everyone knows transfolk make the best, clevrrest, most logical AND funniest cartoons!

Fabulous, the comments are even more fabulous.

Fermats.

Those cartoons are humour fails though. They do not construct or tell a joke, they just evidence that someone is conflating sex and gender .

Magpies

That cartoonist has clearly never actually encountered a small child.

The scene - our high street on a busy summer Saturday afternoon. Woman in front of us is walking a dog. Three year old DS (in very high pitched, very loud and penetrating voice, complete with pointing gestures) "Mummy, that dog has a willy"... pause ... "Mummy, I've got a willy"... pause... "Mummy, you haven't got a willy."

You what? Sorry, MrsBeau, failing to understand your point.

I found them very funny. (As with all Alex cartoons, the point is usually that the observer thinks the cartoon is heading towards one obvious, rather unsubtle punchline, then the last frame will subvert it with a much more interesting punchline).

Sorry....my post was aimed at Magpie and wrongly directed to you!

Ah!

(FWIW, I think Magpies is posting these with what's meant to be the satirical commentary that "You're all mean..." At least that's how I read her. Damned internet and the difficulty of conveying tone...)

There's a subreddit dedicated to picking apart the Assigned Male comics. Even some people who're generally very supportive of "gender identity" can't resist the temptation to take the piss.

There is no wit in them at all - they are public information material in a comic format to make them more attractive. Unless those who they are aimed and share them at are humourless.........

Magpies does not seem humourless though.

I find those cartoons featuring the child slightly creepy. It feels like the cartoonist is co opting children to further an adult agenda.

Magpies , proving Poe's law.

Exactly, Fermats! Young children are brutally honest about everything - no social filter.

8yo DD last weekend in public loo, we were sharing a cubicle.

In loud, small child voice:

"Mummy, I dont' like that you have hairs on your vagina, I'm never going to have hairs there."

"Umm, ok, did you decide what to get Sarah for her birthday?"

"An LOL Surprise doll. Do all women have hairs there? Or is it just you? Daddy has hairs around his willy, do all men have hairs around their willy or is it just Daddy? It's gross, I don't want hair ever."

OlennasWimple

I have so many memories of white hot burning cheeks and temples as my kids ignored social boundaries and asked loudly why certain things were a certain way. One of my brothers has physical and mental disabilities, and my kids were very direct - "Why does your leg look so wonky? Is it made of rubber?"

Also, I notice in one of those crap, unfunny cartoons magpies posted, the woman on the bench calls out the babysitter's use of 'their' as though it would be a scandalous thing to say at that point in the conversation. It's not at all - according to language conventions it's perfectly legitimate to say "I am not their sibling, I am their babysitter".

So, variously; really tumbleweed unfunny, clearly never had a real conversation about this ever, and obviously, mind-numbingly stupid worldview.

In the same way that all transwomen are brave and gorgeous, then trans ally humour, however leaden, must be side-splittingly funny.