An instigator decided he didn’t like Fearless Girl disrupting the integrity of Charging Bull. In response, he slapped together an intentionally poorly designed dog to urinate on her leg, installing her last night.
Alex Gardega insists he’s a feminist. He says he’s simply incensed by the marketing ploy by State Street and feels Fearless Girl doesn’t belong. Ergo, he’s protesting. Protesting by having a dog urinate on a child’s leg. A female child, at that.
Let’s say Gardega is genuinely enraged by the disruption of Charging Bull. Is it remotely appropriate to have a dog urinate on the leg of a child, even in statue form?
Additionally, even if Gardega is a “feminist” (which I doubt) how is it not blisteringly obvious that misogyny isn’t alive and well in 2017? That someone would think it’s wholly appropriate to urinate on a woman, without consent. To shame a woman in public. To degrade a woman “in the name of art.” We are not your tools, men.
On Twitter, someone suggested placing Fearless Girl elsewhere. And, you know what? I agree. She needs to be moved. She needs to face the White House until our society recognizes and accepts that a woman can effectively govern this country.
Lastly, sponsored/commissioned art has been going on for centuries. Stop making State Street the problem in this scenario. The statue is brilliant. It stands on its own and conveys a message. Making it about its sponsor dilutes the message. That said, I’m thinking a dilution of the message might be the intended consequence given how intimidated many are by women in positions of power, especially women of color.
The more vehement the protest about Fearless Girl, the more obvious one’s feeling threatened becomes. It says everything about the protester and our society, in general. We live in an age when a bronze female form is a threat. Think about that.
This is one of those instances when I’m honestly not sure whether this RooshV person is actually serious or whether his extremely misogynist – what he terms “neomasculist” – views are simply trolling everyone, with feminists as the particular target. The statements above and the following statement seem a little too calculated to be genuine:
“Under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone…If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with.”
Apparently, he thinks that a woman’s body and her genitals in particular are the same thing as her purse and her smartphone. You know, just some stuff that’s up for grabs if it’s not locked up. I suppose if he saw someone’s phone sitting on their desk at work, that he would help himself to it. Why wouldn’t he? Obviously, they wanted him to have it. And likewise, any man who finds himself alone with a woman should feel free to coerce her into sex, or if that doesn’t work, simply force himself on her. Technically, it wouldn’t be forcing her at all since she gave him her tacit consent as soon as she stepped across his threshold.
And, hey, if rape on private property was legal then there would be a lot less rape, right? It’s a win-win situation. Only a rape committed by a stranger in a back alley is a real rape anyway. If a friend or a colleague or classmate gets a woman alone then he’s entitled to her body.
The message to women is clear: if you don’t feel like having sex with a man then don’t be alone with him, ever. And as for the men, if you’re in a committed relationship and you really don’t want to cheat on your significant other, then for God’s sake don’t allow yourself to be alone with any woman. You know you’re incapable of controlling yourself.