Renegade was addressing this post by Nine Deuce, and at first I was--lazily, I admit it--just sort of responding off of RE's response, briefly, because honestly, I just didn't want to get into it, and I didn't want to go over there and really engage. Mostly because I can hear the faint melancholy tinkle of "It's a Small World" playing in the back of my head again, and I--no. I mean--no. I'm obsessive compulsive, God knows, but even I have my limits for this particular argument, particularly--no, can't even be arsed to get into it that far. Okay, fine, porn is the root of all evil, people or at least men are like Pavlov's dogs and can be conditioned by orgasm, the idea that a career in sex work could ever be anything but dangerous and disgusting is merely an illusion and the people who are in such careers and argue otherwise are merely kidding themselves--you know what, I'm not one of those people, I'll stick up for my friends, but otherwise...what the fuck ever, I'm really tired. Whatevs.
But I did eventually click over because I -had- replied even tangentially to Ren's post there, and thought it'd be rum not to at least read the whole thing before commenting.
Unfortunately, I got stopped by this illustration. Which, I take it isn't of ND's drawing, but seems to have met with great approval from at least two other people who've since blogged it at their own spots. Um. Uh.
Okay. Not to be leading or anything, I'm just gonna go ahead and repost it and ask:
Why, exactly, might someone find this offensive? Even someone who -isn't- an Empowerful Stripper or Sparkly Fun Sexy Feminist? Three guesses, and the first two don't count, 'k?
I'll be over here.
ETA: right, okay, clearly I was wrong, Heart and Nine Deuce and witchy-woo have determined that the cartoon is not repeat NOT racist, (or sexist either, of course: we're not laughing AT the clueless blonde in the bikini, NO) and therefore it must not be. And obviously any cartoon by this cartoonist is probably okay, I mean: like, there's no racism here either, right?
ETA again: thanks, Sarah, for explaining -why- the former is erm -problematic- more coherently than I can at this point. I mean, obviously you are another one of those woman-hating meenie meenertons who Just Have It In For um whichever beleaguered personality it is this week and don't really mean what you're saying EITHER, because who would really; but, thanks for the effort: we who are about to crush the True Revolution salute you. Oh, and Ren, too, of course. And Bint, yes indeed.
ETA again, again: Yes, I am aware that the second cartoon is likely anti-W and anti-war. No, it wasn't actually -immediately- obvious to me on first seeing it, for a number of reasons, (for one, having seen a few too many unironic right wing odes to Dubya a la "My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys" back in the day, and just a shitload of really rank xenophobia) although I figured it out after a few more clicks. No, I don't think that the fact that it's not actually intended to be far-right propaganda means that it isn't using problematic, racially loaded imagery.
The artist in question--who's worked for both right wing and left wing media outlets and whose motto would appear to be that she is, in her words, "an equal opportunity skewer" (how...edgy) has a number of similarly erm ambiguous cartoons wherein mostly I think, as with the first one here: I really don't know -what- the fuck the point was here, exactly; I can -guess- what it's -supposed- to be saying more or less, but, ummmmm, it's not actually funny, see.
And, you know, I COULD go on explaining how actually, it doesn't -matter- that the audience in the first one may not have been -intended- to be -all- of color; it's -still drawing on loaded imagery and pushes reactionary buttons-, or the etiology of the "dumb blonde," but, well, mostly, at this point, I just want to know, from Certain Factions:
So, finally, is irony an all-purpose ass-cover, or isn't it?
Because, see, many of the people now going,
"Racism? What racism? I can't see any racism! The author didn't INTEND any racism (I know this to be true, I have osmosis)! Ergo, it isn't racist! Your perception of any racism therein, therefore, is INVALID. And it certainly isn't sexist! Just because it's drawing on sexist imagery to make its point doesn't make it sexist! It's, why, it's, it's...IRONIC."
i.e., the ones who thought this thing was a BRILLIANT illustration of something or other in the first place?
are the very same people who would -appear- to be insisting that when it comes to stripping, sex work, porn, burlesque, femme accoutrements, you know, pretty much anything that's OF the Patriarchy, BY the Patriarchy...no irony, no subversion, no nuance is possible. The POINT is, MEN will always see it a certain way; and that's all that matters. O.K.
Indeed, no authorial intent (what, you're saying the stripper can be an "author?" Get out!) matters. Some things cannot be reclaimed; cannot be "ironic;" queer burlesque is just more man pleasing by any other name; there IS no such thing as "feminist porn," high heels have one meaning, and one meaning only, one size fits all thanks, and so on, and so on, and so on. So sorry; whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, there--have a little orgasm, make art, trivial shit like that--you're going to have to just rip it all up and start from scratch.
But so now we learn that apparently when it comes to making fun of the people you want to make fun of? Employing stuff that, if it ISN'T the same ol' offensive reactionary racist-sexist-etc. shit, sure plays it on TV? Why, THAT'S just FINE. Of COURSE no one's going to interpret either of those cartoons as a straightforward celebration of sexual harassment or shoot-the-Indian! Don't be so stupid! C'mon! Where's your sense of humor? You're imagining things! Yer just so SENSITIVE...
And, finally, this? Sums it up.