Put me in the the-cartoon-is-tone-deaf camp.* But, as important is it is to be on the lookup for gender-stereotyping, the sexism debate obscures the visionary genius in Mark Marderosian’s cartoon. The city ought to sell the police station property.
The site is a prime mixed-use opportunity and redevelopment could really bridge the east and west sides of West Newton Square, creating a continuous commercial streetscape, with residential above retail.
The police station, almost by definition, generates a lot of vehicular traffic and requires a lot of parking. If the city were building it today, it would never plop it smack in the middle of a village center. Better if the station — and its traffic — were on the outskirts of the square, east a bit on Washington Street. I’m not sure what exact properties Robert Korf owns or controls, but the city should fulfill Mark’s vision and explore a swap.
*The conceit of the cartoon is great, but the highly gendered setup and language is, at best, cringeworthy.
Oh, come on Sean, the cartoon in no way is insulting to Mayor Fuller. I know her pretty well and I can almost guarantee you she did not find it at all offensive. But you, a very white male did, on behalf of all women? The cartoon was not intended to reinforce gender stereotyping, nor do I think it had that effect even unintentionally. She is the leader of our city… and a historic one at that. In my opinion, the toon was harmless COMEDY.
Of course, you (and Ruthanne Fuller) are 100 percent right about selling off the police station, which I think could be redeveloped as housing, perhaps for seniors.
Quick test for you, Andy: would the cartoon work if the mayor were Roballen Fuller?
Spoiler alert: there are at least two things that would be jarring (and inconsistent with the actual world we live in).
You have until the end of the day!
Yes, the cartoon would work. And now I wait for a white man to mansplain sexism to me.
“And now I wait for a white man to mansplain sexism to me.”
Ouch.
Sean, I understand where you’re coming from. The thing is even in a perfect non-sexist world (which I realize we are no where near) affront will still be personal – insulting to some and not to others. It’s commendable for you to speak out when you see sexism – particularly to another man so Bravo.
Some women, such as myself, who have fought to be accepted in fields where men have and still do dominate might just take this in stride and see it as funny because it’s so much less offensive than anything we’ve experienced. Of course it would have been funnier if a male mayor were referred to as a spokesmodel and called the police station adorable. Because the cartoon put the sale on QVC, it worked for me but might not for others.
As for the police station OUGHT to be sold, I also don’t deal in absolutes or like being told how things should be done. I would like to see the police moved to a new, much better headquarters but don’t really want to sell the building. I would prefer another solution.
Sean, I think the cartoon would work in similar fashion, though maybe tweaked with the mayor as a game show host or something like that. Is that a “gender stereotype”? I suppose, though the point of the cartoon had nothing to with gender roles, but rather Robert Korff’s “shopping spree” on Washington Street. I believe Marderosian’s wife watches QVC and the two of them came up with the idea.
There is a lot of real sexism and disgusting mistreatment of women in the world. But I don’t think the cartoon is either reflective of or encourages such behavior. Now, if a cartoonist consistently had male characters who are powerful, brave and intelligent, with women weak and reliant on those men, you would have a strong point. And we certainly did see legitimate sexism (and classism) employed against Ruthanne Fuller in the late stages of the mayoral campaign. That was real… and abhorrent (and backfired).
I get your point, but I don’t think the work subtly suggests to women that all they can aspire to be is a shopping network host. It was satire.
Andy, I was on board with your comment until the remark about classism. There’s no such thing as clsssism towards the wealthy, just like there’s no such thing as sexism towards men or reverse racism. In order for something to be classist/sexist/racist, it needs to be towards an oppressed group. Certainly she’s been judged for her wealth and her choices, but wealthy people are not an oppressed group and she cannot be the victim of clsssism.
Andy,
You’ve conceded my point. If you’d have to tweak it to work for a male mayor, then it’s gendered. Mark is treating Ruthanne differently than if she had been a man, regarding subject matter that has nothing to do with gender. World’s worst crime? Hardly. A clear example of avoidable gender stereotyping? Certainly.
I love the QVC conceit. Very clever. If I were editing Mark, I would have asked him for a title different than “spokesmodel.” And, I would have avoided the word “adorable.” Use language that would have worked just as well if the mayor had been a man.
“Adorable” as applied to the police station gives the cartoon a little punch that would be hard to replace. But, that just proves that the cartoon is too reliant on Ruthanne’s gender.
If we’re going to commit to avoiding gender discrimination (or any other kind of discrimination), we have to be willing to spike even a clever cartoon that traffics, however glancingly, in gender stereotypes.
Andy and Mark (if you’re reading), this from Marti should give you pause:
“Some women, such as myself, who have fought to be accepted in fields where men have and still do dominate might just take this in stride and see it as funny because it’s so much less offensive than anything we’ve experience.”
“Less offensive” is a low bar.