Sociological Images has a post up pointing out something I have actually never noticed: how women are almost always depicted as voiceless or faceless in editorial cartoons about abortion. This isn't solely the province of anti-choice cartoons, either. Some examples:
What these (and most) editorial cartoons are doing is channeling and distilling the political debate. It's telling how, even in the pro-choice cartoon in the center above, the woman is just a stand in for "women's rights" -- a broad issue, not an individual woman making a choice. This is reflective of how we talk about "contentious" abortion issue -- and it's pretty striking to see all these cartoons lined up. (More here.)
And if you aren't already reading Sociological Images on the regular, I highly recommend it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Abortion cartoons: Where is the woman's voice?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14304
In these cartoons (except for the middle one) the women are just incubators.
I never noticed that before, but that's really disturbing. I'm disappointed, once again, by our society's opinions and news media.
I love the way the feminist in the 3rd one is portrayed.
Yeah, isn't that weird? What gets me is that Pro-Choicers are not the ones that go around haranguing pregnant people about their, uh, choices. That's the other guys. I've said it before and I'll say it again--the forced-birth brigade is so blinded by their own position, where "life" is a dog-whistle for "misogyny," that they can't *imagine* that "choice" really means "choice" and isn't a dog-whistle for "hates babies."
I don't know about you but I *totally* hang around OB/GYNs' offices and harass pregnant women...
Oh, and I just noticed this: She has a camera slung over her shoulder, as if she's going to take pictures of the pregnant woman, and maybe her license plate, too. Because it's not as if protesters at abortion clinics do that(or at least pretend to). Nope.
Part of the problem is that the pro choicers have let the right wing loonies control the terms of the debate. There is so much misinformation about late abortion and what it entails, and that's
because no one wants to talk about it. Those are the icky last resorts that no one wants to think about for fear of coming off as callous or a baby killer. These cartoons are as ignorant as they come, but I think we need to work harder to educate about abortion rather than deeming it just a women's health issue and a "tragic choice" (thanks Hillary!).
I think more of the problem is, so many are so set in their opinions, that once facts are presented they have to be false. Because it goes against what they consider right or wrong, you have to be wrong. It's more than educating them regarding facts, it's changing how people react to information that contradicts what they were previously taught.
The abortion debate too often becomes an argument over what each other's positions mean. Pro-choicers spend too much time correcting anti-choicers instead of telling them to simply listen to someone else for three seconds and state our positions in the most dumb-downed way possible. When I listen to people debating abortion rights, even if one or both are women, I wonder if they realize they're talking about me. They're so concerned about being right or stymieing their opponent that they forget that abortion rights isn't a game. We're talking about real women here with lives, families, jobs, and faces. So it doesn't surprise me at all that these cartoons, even the pro-choice ones, take women out of the message they're trying to get across.
Has anyone seen the Against Me video for Stop? I can't find it on YouTube anymore, so I can't post it here. They made two videos for the same song, but here's a basic description of the second video they made. The whole theme of the video is the importance of voting, placing different kinds of people in front of a voting booth. They had a homeless person, a gay couple getting married, an immigrant entering the country illegally. Then they show a pro-choicer and an anti-choicer arguing with each other and holding signs. They don't even show a young woman walking between them, which would show that there are actual women in the middle of this debate (literally). They failed miserably at depicting reproductive rights. Being able to hold a sign that says "Keep Abortion Safe and Legal" or "God is Pro-Life" is a free speech issue, not a reproductive rights issue.
yeah me being pro choice means that I want pregnant women to get abortions and I go around harassing them all day. Whoever wrote that needs to crack a fucking book or read ONE paragraph written on the topic by a pro choice person.... I can't even really be offended by something so stupid and ill-conceived aside from the fact that others agree.
I know that in these one panel political cartoons, it can be common for a figure to stand-in for an idea rather than an individual character. They're conveying messages in shorthand, essentially. What would be a better way for a pro-choice cartoon, such as the one in the middle,to approach including the woman in the cartoon? (I won't bother with the anti-choice cartoons, because we already know they like their women faceless and voiceless anyway.Iconography or not.)
How would a pro-choice cartoon-in the one panel political cartoon format - work to convey the message and not have just one figure stand in for all individuals. Would the center cartoon have worked better if it had shown the woman speaking about the Supreme Court decision instead of being spoken to by the judges?
Hahahha.
Everyone's anti-abortion until their 13 year old daughter comes home knocked up.
Fuck them.
There is one (presumably) pregnant woman depicted in each of these cartoons, but not one word uttered by any of them. Two talking fetuses (...fetii?), though. Huh.
That's kind of an interesting idea. Take the abortion question out of politics, give it to doctors. There are obviously doctors WILLING to perform abortions for people, just as there are doctors not willing to perform. I assume that the problem then would be doctors not referring people to other doctors when that's requested, but maybe some sort of advertising or something, some big list of providers online, might work there.
So many things wrong with the third one. Why is it when someone stands up for their rights they're posited as stepping on someone elses?
Despite being "faceless" in the center one, I think it's meant to convey a particular feeling.
I can't put it into words, but it does what it's supposed to. Political cartoons often use one person, or a humanoid shape, to act as a placeholder for an issue or theme.
OK, am I imagining things, or is the last one also racist? A million terrorists in the world? Seems like that only makes sense if the cartoonist is refering to Muslims.