February 6, 2014

It's easy to make fun of these women, but I do think it's fair to say that the art folk here are exploiting people.

The sculpture is out in the open where it can be seen from a distance and it really does look like a strange man stumbling about in his underwear.



Whether you're afraid of "him" or simply think he has a problem — after all, it's winter — and needs help, you're drawn into a real emotional response before you realize it is art. You're out there, living your life, in the public space — here, at a college that has drawn you in through gestures of welcoming and has taken your money — and suddenly you see a problem that you must respond to. But — ha ha — it's only a statue. You're silly. You were afraid of a statue. So it's an unsettling prank. Why? Is that good art? It has appropriated your peace of mind, your comfort in a public space, for what? To challenge and intrigue you, perhaps. The art people on campus would like to reach out — like this fake man groping forward nakedly sleepwalking — because the youngsters need to be contacted, against their will, and if they don't like it, they're to be publicly derided for their lack of sophistication.

(Originally posted as an update here.)

ADDED: Now, I'm not saying the petition was the best response. I think the kids should fight back in various ways. Here's a young woman doing a selfie with the guy. If you can get someone else to take the picture, the arms are in a good position for pretending to be dancing with him. He could be dressed up. It's possible that the art people imagined that the students would just laugh and play, but if so, they were unsophisticated. They were unable to see things through the eyes of others.

AND: Let's realize that throughout history statuary has been used to intimidate people. What's all that ancient Egyptian sculpture about if not to cow people into abject submission?



Think of all the Lenin and Stalin statues. And how about Saddam Hussein's despicable "Victory Arch"?



Is the Wellesley "Sleepwalker" in this tradition? Yes, the idea of a mighty oppressor seems like a dream to us now.  Perhaps it's a joke bouncing off the tradition of the intimidating colossus.

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!



Who can be afraid anymore? We've been tweaking Ozymandias for centuries. We've laughed at the imposing males and their sculptural representations for so long that it should be the men — not the women, putting the "tit" in petition — who cry out at the long-running, long-stumbling humiliation of the puny fake man in saggy panties.

225 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 225 of 225
Fen said...

"...show me on the doll where the patriarchy touched you"

Rusty said...

Ann Althouse said...
I can't believe Rusty agreeing with me and committing the format offense discussed just yesterday.

It's your house, doll. If quotation marks are the price for letting me play here, then quotation marks you get.

CWJ said...

Fen@4:34 -

Obviously, this thread moved far away from my 8:35 comment. But that's funny.

Fen said...

Careful now. We must be appropriately serious about feminsist pearl clutching, or Ann will have another meltdown and close the comments again.

We learned how to handle such people in our liberal arts classes - just repeat their BS back to them, nod and smile.

Meade said...

Fen, you ignorant slut.

Anonymous said...

Fen is jewel clutcher.

Saint Croix said...

Hey, why aren't there crowds of heterosexual men at the big art museums that are full of sculptures and paintings of naked and almost naked women?

I think if art museums had life-like sculptures of naked and near-naked women, we would see more men in art museums (and less women!)

You act like the history of art isn't replete with female nudity.

Is your theory that men are running away from museums because they are afraid of all the naked women in the museums?

To me it seems very basic and primal to point out that men have a tendency to run towards sex, while women have a tendency to want to escape it. Men are the pursuers and women are the pursued. This is because women get pregnant, and men do not, and our attitudes have developed over millions of years of human evolution. 50 years of birth control might change this dynamic a bit, but only a bit.

So the female attitude towards a surprising near-naked statue of the opposite sex is quite different from the male attitude towards a surprising near-naked statue of the opposite sex. The female is surprised and disturbed, while the male is surprised and happy.

Anonymous said...

The female may be surprised, but disturbed? Nah, I bet most are amused. 100 women signed his petition, how many women attend Wellesley?

As for women running away from sex, really? So why do some jerks (previous page) talk about "female sport fucking" and birth control? So what is it, women are scared of sex and run away, or women are sluts and "sport fuck"? Sheesh, make up your minds.

Fen said...

100 women signed his petition, how many women attend Wellesley?

How many have started a petitiion to ignore the first one? Zero.

Saint Croix said...

The female may be surprised, but disturbed? Nah, I bet most are amused.

Healthy women are amused, or annoyed. But the over-the-top reactions at Wellesley suggests a serious problem on that campus.

So what is it, women are scared of sex and run away, or women are sluts and "sport fuck"?

If we're talking about unhealthy reactions to a near-naked statue of the opposite sex, I think most unhealthy women would have a fearful response, while a small minority of unhealthy women would have an overly sexual response.

In men we would see the opposite dynamic.

The statue itself is non-sexual. It's innocent! He's asleep, for crying out loud. So the more you sexualize this innocent man, the more you showcase your own issues with human sexuality.

I actually think this art was designed to provoke a sexual response in the audience. So it's not innocent at all.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
campy said...

Stop mansplaining, St. Croix.

Rusty said...


I think if art museums had life-like sculptures of naked and near-naked women, we would see more men in art museums (and less women!)


That's assuming they aren't female statues of Bea Arthur.

Rusty said...

oops "


"

Saint Croix said...

Masculinity is in deep decline

I think fatherhood is in deep decline. The feminist attack on fatherhood is a huge mistake for women and their babies. Men will always be men. But fatherhood can easily be destroyed.

and the answer is to cry "woo-hoo" and say "we love naked ladies."

Do men still like sex? Of course! But feminism has stripped men of any authority over reproduction. After Roe v. Wade, pregnancy is something you women do. It's your body, it's your choice.

So if you're irritated that men are behaving in sexually irresponsible fashion, like children as opposed to fathers, well, maybe feminists should not have demanded all authority over human reproduction.

Saint Croix said...

I had to pull one of my posts because Kirk beat me to it.

Althouse is right, it is beta to simulate sex with a statue. In fact I think it's way below beta. Zeta, maybe. Or upsilon.

They got sex robots in Japan now. Omega!

Fen said...

Ace says it best: "I thought art was supposed to be all transgressive and shit. But apparently only as long as it upsets the proper people."

Meade said...

Personally,
I'm ready for Hillary.

Saint Croix said...

I think rape is a subtext in the response to this art. How afraid should we be of a near-naked man?

At Wellesley there are the classic liberals who say that men and women are equal, equal, equal. These liberals want to humanize the man. He’s innocent. He’s a sleepwalker. See his humanity and appreciate it. Give the sleepwalker a hug.

There are also at Wellesley the rape-obsessed feminists who hate men. These feminists want to demonize the man. He’s a rapist. He’s a man. See the monster and hide him away. Take down the rape statue!

So that’s the fight at Wellesley.

Conservatives like to point out the reality of sexual difference. A naked or near-naked man in public might be a threat. A naked or near-naked woman in public is not. Unless she’s crazy or ugly or something. I think if I saw a naked woman in public tomorrow, my alarm bells would go off. But if she was hot I would still approach her.

The world needs liberals who remind us all about the humanity of everybody, how we are all brothers and sisters. We are the world! But the world also needs cranky conservatives who will tell you that our two sexes are different, and you should not be gullible or foolish in your trust. Do not assume that near-naked man is just like you. Do not let your dreams or your ideology mislead you. Women should be brave, but they also need to have their eyes open to risk.

Normal people realize this art is not the same thing as a near-naked man in public. It’s a representation, designed to provoke us and get us thinking. To censor art is an ugly (and stupid) impulse. We should all protect free speech, which is vital to the health of our society.

This urge to silence speakers, to shut away art, to censor and control thoughts, is one of the ugly aspects of modern-day feminists. (We see this same urge in the abortion context, with the censoring of photographs of aborted infants). Feminism is now a quite powerful, and quite dangerous force in our society. Both liberals and conservatives should denounce this fascist urge to control art, to shut people up, or to silence people.

Laura said...

If the allegedly morally and intellectually superior women have won the gender war, why do they still resort to infanticide?

Laura said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SGT Ted said...

Fen is jewel clutcher.

NTTAWWT...

CSVideo said...

"Meanwhile, men also fail to be offended by the Wellesley representation of the male that is actually quite disparaging to masculinity."

This struck me as funny. What's disparaging about it? That he's not the epitome of fitness? That his undergarments aren't the height of fashion? That he's afflicted by the syndrome of sleep-walking?

It's nothing to be considered disparaging. It's merely an evocation of pathos in the form of a schlubby man. The only thing embarrassing is your comment

CSVideo said...

"Meanwhile, men also fail to be offended by the Wellesley representation of the male that is actually quite disparaging to masculinity."

This struck me as funny. What's disparaging about it? That he's not the epitome of fitness? That his undergarments aren't the height of fashion? That he's afflicted by the syndrome of sleep-walking?

It's nothing to be considered disparaging. It's merely an evocation of pathos in the form of a schlubby man. The only thing embarrassing is your comment

Scott Gallant said...

Please sign this petition to end Feminist hypocrisy!

https://www.change.org/petitions/h-kim-bottomly-dissuade-petitioners-of-sleepwalker-statue-from-participating-in-future-slut-walks

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 225 of 225   Newer› Newest»