Comments on: Remaining stupid

By: Wouter

Wouter — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:07:04 +0000

I’m amazed at the discussion and the misinterpretation of the cartoon’s intention. I find it very funny (it has been sitting on my desk ever since I first saw it), and it seems obvious to me that it’s the male character who looks ridiculous, not the student. The whole point of the cartoon is that simply because of the way she looks and the way she’s dressed, he takes it for granted that she must be stupid. The cartoon brilliantly ridicules the guy’s sexism, and it’s very ironic that it’s being perceived as sexist itself.

By: Kristine

Kristine — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:40:21 +0000

To Peacay: sorry, I completely misinterpreted what you meant - I thought you were thinking of sexual preference, my mistake entirely. Well yes, sexual favour is what I meant when I wrote that it is left up to your imagination what the student needs to do to be cured of her stupidity.

To Wil’s point 2: yes, you’re right. Ignorant is a better translation. Stupid would be “stom” and “dom” is more like “ignorant” or “silly.” Our princess Maxima famously called crown prince Alexander “een beetje dom” - “a little silly” - but the meaning in the cartoon is more to do with ignorance, I guess.

To Helmer: I really think that it is worth aiming my shotgun every once in a while. This cartoon, jokes made at work, a lack of role models, assumptions about the ways mothers function at their work — all these things are not without their effect on women’s carreers. A university website should be more careful about the images they use.

By: Wil Cone

Wil Cone — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:24:47 +0000

Very strange cartoon.

A couple of comments:

1. I’ve been out of school for several years now, and maybe things have changed (or maybe things are different in the Netherlands), but I don’t remember any students dressing like the woman in the cartoon.

2. I assume the male is asking the question, but it is rather ambiguous. Either way, it’s an odd and insulting question. I think of “stupid” as roughly equivalent to low IQ, i.e., something you can’t change by more than a degree or two. Could the original be translated as “ignorant” - a word that suggests the possibility of learning and improvement?

By: Carnival of Feminists No 25 - Philobiblon

Carnival of Feminists No 25 - Philobiblon — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 02:12:54 +0000

[...] Some history, however, just keeps repeating itself. On Earmarks in Early Modern Culture, she reports on the furore over a sexist cartoon in a University of Amsterdam publication. Very Fifties! [...]

By: peacay

peacay — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:49:35 +0000

Helmer, while I think you make good points (and were this not published on a University educational website I think they would have more merit) but you are suggesting a wider interpretation than that which is obvious.

It’s irrelevant that the man is frumpy and bald - he is portrayed as holding the power and as possessing intelligence and to suggest that we are asked to perhaps interpret this cartoon as displaying his lack of intelligence is disingenuous. Sharpen your Occam’s Razor. The context is a University educational website, not a random image in a media publication (and even if it were elsewhere, it wouldn’t extinguish a simple ‘reading’ of the meaning, it would just mean that without additional context - a la University website - the argument for a different ‘reading’ gains a slightly better foothold).

There is a suggestion that this is a reverse logic scenario that asks us to think a bit deeper but I still think that, even if the intent were to make fun of past(?) stereotypes, the more obvious interpretation is that the portrayal merely reinforces the power/sexual relationships.

I see a modern girl dressed provocatively being chastised for poor academic performance. The simple interpretation, the one that jumped out at me immediately I saw it, is that because she is young, because she is sexually liberated and hip, she has no rightful place in educational facilities - she can’t succeed because of her identity - one more of the myriad portrayals in jest and in kind and in reality that have perpetually reinforced the notion that women are less capable intellectually.

I definitely subscribe to the Spelke position.

[Kristine, not sure what you mean about normative -- I guess I thought you implied that the cartoon suggested that sexual favours might help the girl or whatever....that's what I was saying that I didn't see - no matter though!]

By: Helmer

Helmer — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:08:55 +0000

I am sorry, Kristine, but I cannot see how this cartoon is offensive. Of course, this cartoon refers to stereotypes. But doesn’t it also question them? Is not the pathetic male character as offensive to men as the female character might be to women? As a Shakespeare scholar trained in dialogue, used to tease every possible meaning out of stereotypes like revengers and Moors, you will surely see that the cartoon is more complex than you say (as it is always difficult to see who is ridiculed in Van Straaten’s cartoons). How do you know as a fact that the young student, besides sexy and embarrassed, is also stupid? And that the teacher is not? He is asking the question, and my first response to the cartoon was that HE was the one being ridiculed for his desperate attempt to exert some kind of authority that he, with his baggy suit, his bald head, and his hanging shoulders, obviously does not have. The fun of the cartoon is that we don’t know what has been going on, we don’t know if the teacher is sighing out of justified frustration or begging for sexual favours. Van Straaten leaves us guessing, and I think you shouldn’t be tempted to favour one guess above another.
I sympathize with your concern for the female position at Dutch universities, but I feel that you’re shooting at a fly with a shotgun here. Shouldn’t you rather question bigger issues (like the work pressure, for instance, which might keep women with children from attaining high positions, or might even make them flee Academia altogether in their thirties).

By: Kristine

Kristine — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:05:10 +0000

Well, of course it’s sexual, but my primary objection to it was not that it is heteronormative (if that is what Peacay means by sexual favour) — my objection to it is that it depicts an attractive woman as “stupid” and as a sex object. It confirms stereotypes that a university should seek to challenge, especially if it wants to create an atmosphere in which more women stay in academia.

By: bdh

bdh — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:57:59 +0000

Really? My IMMEDIATE response (before reading the comments) was that it was sexual. Just goes to show…

By: Kristine

Kristine — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:46:07 +0000

Peacay, I have to admit I didn\’t think of sexual favour, I thought of our female students and wondered whom they could identify with in this image. How are we ever going to get more women to teach at our universities, if teaching is persistently represented in images such as this one. I thought of female students who dress like the student in the picture, and how they would feel if they saw it. Either the cartoon is sexist, or it pokes fun at middle-aged lecturers who supposedly think that all attractive female students are there to sleep with. Either way, I don\’t think it should be on a university website. I\’m glad you agree!

By: peacay

peacay — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:24:51 +0000

I don’t see the stereotype of the old professor trying to feel young you ascribe to this cartoon. I also don’t immediately equate the cartoon and caption with a sexual favour implication (if that’s what you mean but are not quite writing). I’m not saying that these aren’t there - I’m just providing my [male] reaction.

That said, I do immediately regard the image as sexist and unwarranted. Poor taste and poor choice. It shouldn’t be there, end of story.