Is This NY Daily News Cartoon Sexist?

The National Organization of Women has made a statement calling this editorial cartoon by staff cartoonist Bill Bramhall sexist. It depicts New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand with really big mouth and a bunch of people (who I guess we assume are all men?) waiting in line to fill it with a number of items.

NOW-NYS President Marcia Pappas commented,

“It looks like the Daily News has a new target for their misogynistic garbage. So what is the message, “Sit down and shut up girls”?”

Cartoonist Bramhall said in his defense,

“The cartoon is about a politician with diarrhea of the mouth, not about her gender...”

And Tom Spurgeon added in his coverage of the story,

"No matter what the person's intentions are, that could be definitely be seen by a rational person as a cartoon motivated by paternalism and festooned with phallic symbols. At the very least such a result should be accepted as an unintended consequence hopefully not to be repeated, at which point barring a history of this kind of thing we can all move on."

So what do you think? Was the cartoon sexist? Or is sometimes a cork threatening to fill a big round hole just a cork threatening to fill a big round hole?

Sexist Book Covers

As we see in this article, sexism in the publishing industry still remains a pervasive problem; books and magazines offering up hurtful gender stereotypes that generalize, marginalize, and fragment the unity of humanity into purely arbitrary roles of male and female. Here are some more examples of this problem that has remained an epidemic for decade after decade:


I sure hope that guy doesn't catch cold! Why should the man have no shirt on, while the woman stays clothed? And look at the stupidly idealized nude male form used in the art: sure, every guy has a perfect six-pack and a shaved chest. It's just shocking. Don't the publishers want men to read these books too? They are locking out ONE HALF OF THE POPULATION! Fools.


The man on this cover is clearly being used as nothing but a sex object. Once again, we have the needless nudity and the unrealistic perfectionist and exploitative depiction of the male form. Who is this man? What are his thoughts, dreams, aspirations? The publishers assume we don't care. And that's just wrong.


More man-boobage. And as if to purposely draw attention to said man-boobage, the artist draws light-beams pointing to them. POINTING TO THEM!!!! The nude male form is so idealized in this cover that he has become a literal phantom or dream. Again: what about his inner life?


And here we have a fully-clothed woman with two more half-naked men. She looks at the viewer as if to say, "these men are my sex objects, with which I will soon have sex. their only value to me is the sex they might give me, and their perfect naked bodies." I feel so sorry for the men on that cover, not being valued for their personalities.


Again and again and again we see egregious examples of the blatant sexualization of men in these books. Now, some might argue that because that since these books are part of a "genre," aimed at a specific niche that has comfortably supported them for generations, they should just be allowed to pander to horny women. But that's limiting. It's like giving up. Men want love in their literature too! They want to read torrid love stories based on the verdant plains of ancient Ireland *just* as much as women do! They've just never been given a chance to because of close-minded publishers. I'm sure that if we just put out a romance line of publications for men, they would buy them right up. But they're never given a chance. It's a catch-22 situation. How do we expect more men to buy romance novels if they have such sexist covers? It's like stopping them before they even have a chance to try the book out. In fact, men I've talked to said they would be embarrassed going on the subway and reading one of these books, based on the covers alone.

The human race is made up of both women AND men. They both have the right to read romance novels. To say that women might be more predisposed to read romance novels hurts both females and males. It pigeonholes men into a hurtful stereotype. Are any of us a non-denominational imaginary higher being, can we read minds, can we honestly say with any degree of certainty that males generally do not read romance novels? What about Jimmy Stinton, age 24, in Nebraska who *does* read romance novels? What about his rights? Men are not a hive penis.

But let's go beyond mere questions of human equality and ethics. Sexist content in the publishing industry is just BAD BUSINESS. I'm sure the publishers of these romance books must lose money every single year because of their one-sided, discriminatory content. If they would just stop alienating males by their embarrassing beefcake covers, I'm sure they would almost DOUBLE their readership. It just doesn't make sense from a financial point-of-view.

That is why I am launching a new initiative to get more men reading romance novels.

My goals are:

1. To stop having sexist covers on romance novels. The men on romance novel covers should be clothed at all times. And they should look like REAL men, not some unrealistic supermodel. I want to see love-handles.

Fabio: sexual exploitation victim

2. To set up a fund for exploited male models for these covers. Many of these men know nothing else but to pose nude or semi-nude in photo-shoots. Once their time is up, they find themselves adrift, taking on odd jobs or posing for Boris Vallejo. We need to reach out to these men and let them know – explicitly – that they have more value than just their bodies. We need to heal their souls.

3. To increase the amount of men who read romance novels. To ask them what *they* want in a romance novel for a change, instead of the unimaginative, sexist publishers ignoring their very existence.

4. Get more men writing romance novels. It's my opinion that if we get more men involved both in the creative and editorial process in publishers like Harlequin, positive change will organically happen. For instance, say a man was prominently on the development staff for a book like the aforementioned "Bewitched Viking." I am sure that he would have made a double-take at that exploitative cover, lifted a finger in reproach, and put some clothes on that man.

5. Finally, my dream is to create a line of romance publications made just for men. This venture would not be based on what I, as a woman, *guess* heterosexual men would like, but what scientific studies and expressed opinion has actually demonstrated. Here is a rough mock-up of what I envision this new line will look like:

Watchmen Condom "Sexist?"

Concerning the Watchmen movie giveaway condom, Annalee at the Bitch blog writes:

"While most blogs seem to be talking about this clash between the ideals of the comic series and the commercialism of this promotional item, I was first struck by the overt connection being made between sex and comics. The idea of the "fan boy" has been a topic that I have personally been really interested in lately, so seeing this opportunity for guys to essentially have sex and think of themselves as a superhero* is especially intriguing.

Some may think that a feminist discussion surrounding this condom is a little played out, since the idea that comic books are frequently a boy's club isn't exactly groundbreaking (neither is the notion of men being protectors). However, this does seem especially interesting, right?"

However, Ned at Manolith puts it all in perspective:

"Like most of America, I have a boner for the new Watchmen movie. Yup. I am so excited to see it, I have a boner."

Is there anything sexist about this promotional Watchmen condom? Is a certain gender being discriminated against? Is there a statement being made?

Or is it just that this blue Dr. Manhattan condom sufficiently deals with the massive fan boner?

(of course, women can't have boners, typically. so where does that leave them in this equation?)

(I'm all about giving away free condoms, btw. They are expensive. Though I have my doubts about that blue one.)

Is "Men At Work" Sexist?

No, not that great 80s band fronted by Colin Hay.

In Atlanta, the government is replacing 50 "Men Working" signs with ones that say "Working Ahead." This is the result of a campaign by Cynthia Good to change the signs -- which she believes are sexist.

The exact phrase Good uses regarding the "Men Working" signs is "subtle forms of discrimination."

My questions to you -- Are these signs sexist? Do you think subtle forms of discrimination have an impact? And, using this logic as a yardstick of what is acceptable, can we (should we) carry this viewpoint into our superhero comics? How would we do that? Should we?

Basically, I think gender equality was a legitimate enough reason to change the signs -- if, as Good says, there were women working along men on those sites, a sign that only recognizes the men seems a little backward.

On the other hand, this is the sort of thing that anti-feminists love to point out as "taking things too far." Doesn't mean I think Good was wrong to campaign to get rid of the original signs. I'm just saying that I know how this sort of thing plays out on Fox News.

Vintage Sexist Ads

Nope, these sexist vintage ads aren't comic book related, but I just started browsing this LiveJournal community and couldn't stop...


"Girls Say Yes To Boys Who Say No"
If you skip Vietnam, boys, these chicks will sleep with you! Because pacifism makes them drop their drawers!


"Put Some Fun Between Your Legs"
One day members of the national bicycle council sat around a table and brainstormed how they could make their products seem more attractive to the fairer sex. And so an ad campaign was born.

"My Man Likes Something Unexpected Now And Then"
And nothing says hot times like cooking rice for your hubby. Not totally sexist per se, but has a nice Stepfordy quality.

"Look Who Reads The Bible"
Why, it's TV's Sonny and Cher! I love the submissive pose Cher (frickin' CHER!) strikes here, and that Sonny is made to look taller than her. Family values.



"So The Harder A Wife Works, THE CUTER SHE LOOKS!"
Okay, honestly, sometimes I get the "you should take your vitamins" speech too. But still...

"It's Nice To Have A Girl Around The House"
No comment.