I have no problem with the picture. Or the basic gist of the message. Or the notion in and of itself*. My concerns are juxtaposition and basic anatomy. 1. Why is it that a woman is essentially represented as being capable of being empowered only through the disempowerment of the masculine? Stating everything about the vagina on its own is more than enough to deliver the message. Mentioning the penis not only is a belittlement of masculinity, it also seems to imply that, if not for that, women could never possibly be empowered. Why do that? 2. The penis is not only not intended to function like the vagina, it also is not capable of functioning like the vagina, not because it is somehow weaker or less resilient while being the same; instead, its a very different kind of tissue altogether. The penis is erectile tissue, while the vaginas resizable part is muscle tissue. Thats like comparing the clitoris (the female phallus) to your bladder or biceps or heart: not relevant. P.S.: N.B. I still have no issue with the messages intented goal! * There is, however, a pervasive degree of irony in a trend within the feminist movement which seeks to rightly justify women as more than the organism which house the female reproductive organs and at the same time abundantly returns to motifs pervasive with genitalia.
Posted on: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:38:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015