QUOTE: "this makes it so that the target of the audience's anger is a sexualized woman. the last time that i checked having anger pointed in a sexualized manner was called SEXUAL VIOLENCE (in other words things like rape, stalking, harassment, etc)."

This seems to me to be quite an overstatement. Accusing Mike's drawing of being or promoting a form of sexual violence akin to rape, stalking, and harassment?

I'd first note that these criticisms themselves assume that a drawing of a blond, busty female is inherently portraying an "blond bimbo" -- how is that assumption and assertion different from what Mike is being accused of here, exactly? The "blank stare" is wide cartoon eyes -- again, another stereotype being assumed, because the assumption itself is a mere stereotype based on the fact the woman is blond and busty?

The fact is, FOX News regularly employs females who fit a certain standard look, and while I don't know if the specific news story was delivered by them, I do know of a couple of FOX News female anchors who indeed have the short blond hair and are on the "busty" side. That they often wear clothing to accentuate their physical look is also true -- as it is for many, many other news stations and local newscasts as well.

Perhaps Mike was indeed not merely demonstrating the manner in which the Iraqi death-toll was ignored in favor of a story bashing ANSWER, but was also demonstrating the fact that FOX and other news outlets incorporate the "attractive news anchor" into their propagandizing. Does anyone actually dispute that this happens? If we all know it is a tried-and-true method, then why is Mike being attacked for mocking it alongside the sort of stories it is used to promote while overshadowing other less "savory" stories?

I'm surprised anyone said the breasts are "center stage" -- the lines and shadow on the clothing don't make the breasts prominent at all, they are below the "horizon line" of the drawing (where viewers' eyes traditionally fall when first viewing an image) whereas the face and words occupy the prominent position of the drawing.

I'm also surprised that anyone suggests the image directs the viewers' "anger" at a "sexualized woman" -- sorry, but if you think that activists tend to transfer their anger over one million dead Iraqis from the information to the explict gender of the person delivering the report, and particularly that such anger would not only be gender-transfered but done so in a sexual manner, I have no idea what sort of view of activists you have or with whom you have done your activism, but my guess would be perhaps the Freepers?

I don't just say that as a joke -- there are key elements of that post that seem to indicate a certain attitude towards activists:

* "the object of some spiteful feelings from this audience" -- ahh, anger at the news story of one million dead Iraqis is being called "spiteful feelings", and it comes "from this audience"... that's a rather telling combination of sentiments.

* "the last time that i checked" -- this one's a bit less obvious, but if you scan the comments trolls usually post around here, you will see that this is one of their favorite phrases; not necessarily a huge "tell", but suggestive when combined with the other questionable statements in the post, especially since it comes right before this next one...

* "in political messaging for those professing to work for social justice" -- again a sort of back-handed remark at activists, especially coupled with the early remark about "spiteful feelings from this audience".

Not saying absolutely that I think this is just a troll pretending to be an woman angry at the image, but trolls frequently love to come around here and pretend they are something they aren't (female, black, an activist, smart, etc). So just something to keep in mind. If the poster is NOT a troll in disguise, then my earlier remarks still hold true, plus the use of comments like "spiteful feelings" is perhaps at LEAST as offensive as the things about Mike's drawing that offend her (again, our anger over the news story stems from "spiteful feelings"? really??).

Lastly, Mike's art frequently feature a look that is sometimes intentional caricature -- this is no different. I do not think it was intended to be offensive; I don't think most viewers look at it and immediately just see breasts; I don't think activists who see it will transfer anger towards women in a sexually violent manner (a HUGE leap, and itself not just a small bit horribly offensive in its commentary about activists-as-sexually-violent-offenders); and I don't think that any degree of evocation of a "blond bimbo" in the image is any stronger than the automatic assumption and interpretation of the image being made as a "blond bimbo" because she's blond and has large breasts.

"One standard for your cause and another for someone else's? Last summer Indymedia was up in arms over corporate advertisements chalked on public sidewalks. But I guess that was different free speech because you didn't like what was being said?"

You assume any of us think there's any legitimacy in personal liberties like freedom of speech being granted to inanimate corporations. I have always been 100% opposed to granting ANY civil liberties to corporations as if they are people, while they assume NONE of the usual liability a person would assume (a person kills another person, they get charged with murder; a company kills people, and they don't). Moreover, advertising in order to drum up monetary profits for said company is NOT akin to individual citizens exercising their freedom of political speech -- and courts have long recognized very clear differences in speech generally, in terms of granting stronger protections to political speech. So the comparison is illegitimate, and the views of activists in this matter are not hypocritical.

HOWEVER, your own views just might be sheer hypocrisy -- IF you personally DO support the right of corporations to draw on sidewalks and plaster walls and other items in cities with ads, then how can you possibly not support ANSWER and other activists' rights to do likewise? You will perhaps claim you personally don't oppose activists posting fliers etc, but generally speaking I think we all know you'd be full of crap if you made such a claim.