Anybody who interacts with the most batshit of feminists on a regular basis (as I do, being the semi-professional blogger/internet superhero that I am) will notice an odd trend with these gals:
They seem to have a disturbing and inordinate fascination with their naughty bits.
Just to clarify, I’m not speaking of USING those naughty bits for what they evolved to be used for—god no! Remember that this is the brain trust that came up with political lesbianism and claims that all acts of coitus (or “PIV” as they refer to it) amount to rape—rape being another topic that they seem to be obsessed with, and an explanation for why THAT is will have to be for another article.
No, their obsession over the flower of womanhood is a bit more…shamanistic. The woman’s genitals are an object of veneration for these frails, to the point where much of, some would say the majority of their artistic creativity, is dedicated to depictions and/or discussions —that progressive catch-all term—of the vagina (when they’re feeling extra creative they’ll specifically tackle the vulva, although the distinction between the two is a distinction that most people ignore. Feminists certainly do!)
This article will thus seek to give a brief history of “muh vagina” art, and possibly try to deduce why it has such a grip on these ladies (and not a grip in the kegel sense, of course).
I am deliberately using the term “shamanistic” for reasons that will be made clear below. Of course, the humble snatch was depicted many times by our forebears, such as the Chufin cave in Spain, as well as the famous Venus figurines that are found throughout prehistoric Europe. While these will likely never be fully explained, it is believed (judging by looking at modern day hunter-gatherer tribes) that these figures, with their over-exaggerated breasts, hips, and vaginas, are thought to represent fertility in some way: either as simply exaggerations of the traits of a pregnant woman (ie: sympathetic magic) or as a representation of the oft-discussed mother goddess.
Similarly, Hindu art depicts the vagina, known as the yoni, as (amongst other things) an abstract representation of Shakti, who represents—what else? The divine feminine, the mother goddess.
Various other cultures depict the vagina in various positive and negative contexts, but rather than go into a huge pedantic amount of detail on those, we will skip ahead to modern feminist art (which is to say “feminist” art as we recognize it today), which according to the wonderful people at Wikipedia began in the 1960s.
After it states that “…we cannot find a female artist that matches up to Da Vinci or Buonarotti” (a statement that would probably have surprised Gentileschi), it goes to explain how Linda Nochlin wrote in “Why Are There No Great Woman Artists?” that women are not great artists because of a lack of institutions and education. And to that, I would agree: women were historically not taught to be artists as often as men were, although exceptions certainly did exist (Gentileschi, Cassatt, etc.) And frankly, I would hope that the likes of Gentileschi, Cassatt, Berthe Morisot, Adelaide Guiard, and Le Brun would be cited as examples of women’s skill in art rather than the bilge I’m describing here. But what do I know, I’m just a “misogynist”, right?
And with her and other writers asking why there were no great women artists, women charged valiantly forth, seeking to prove that they were as artistic and as creative as the men!
And while a more charitable writer would point out that feminist art is simply any art made by a feminist, I will be blunt: the vast majority of it, judging from my research, appears to be vagina related. And considering that the examples of non-vagina art includes the excreta of Yoko Ono, amongst other alleged “artists”, one is almost tempted to focus solely upon the cooch parade, as that requires some degree of basic artistic skill.
Right off the bat, we can see Judy Chicago’s “The Dinner Party“, in which famous women from history are, you guessed it, represented by “brightly colored and elaborately styled vaginas”. Speaking as an art lover myself, I have to say that there’s a fair amount of artistic skill here-pottery is clearly a medium she knows well, and at the very least she seems to understand basic ideas like color theory and symmetry.
While Ms. Chicago’s original students at CSU Fresno’s Feminist Art Program managed to avoid the vagina fixation for the most part (with one major exception being Faith Wilding), the same cannot be said of contemporary feminist art. Jamie McCartney of England has created the Great Wall of Vagina which is as stimulating as you could imagine (yes I know McCartney is ostensibly a man).
Aidan Salahova, Megumi Igarashi, and Anish Kapoor have also made big cloddish statues and paintings of the gash (and yes I specify “cloddish” as that seems to be a requirement). And believe it or not, these are probably the most talented of the lot:
I am of course referring to the performance “artists”, who devote an inordinate amount of time to sticking things up the snizz. Lena Marquise created an “Artwork” involving charging cellphones with her vagina and not much else. And of course when you’ve created a genre, imitators have to arise.
Here’s a woman painting pictures of that blonde Bogeyman Donald Trump with her babymaker. Here’s Maria Trujillo slapping vaginas on religious icons. Here’s a video of gay men drawing vaginas and another video of a gay man showing women their vaginas in some sort of inane performance art piece.
And then of course there’s the Vagina Monologues and Our Body Ourselves and the countless, COUNTLESS articles praising “conversations” with women that “reveal” how we’re all living in a Dark Age patriarchy where women don’t know about the magical font of feminine power betwixt their thighs.
And all of those affronts to aesthetics are just things I could easily find from a Wikipedia search.
Seeing all of these examples, now the question remains: Why are they so fixated on the vagina? To look at feminism’s mortal enemy the manosphere, you certainly don’t see such a fixation on phallic symbols in our creations. Even the fruitiest, wimpiest of men’s movements (be it the mythopoetic men’s groups, the migtows, or the fine Morlocks at SlutHate), you don’t see them running around making Play-Doh statues of penises.
If I had to make a guess (judging from what Eve Ensler and others have said about empowerment), these ladies genuinely seem to believe that speaking about the vagina is some sort of taboo subject, and that they are striking back against the white patriarchy by doing so. To be honest, sex in general was once a much more taboo subject than it is today, and I presume that the first feminist artists were truthfully reporting that vaginas were a taboo subject (at least in their circles). But just as leftist college professors inculcate a belief in their students that we’re still living in the “stuffy” 1950s and that their students need to “speak truth to power”, feminist professors teach their students that there is still a pipe-smoking patriarchy to be fought, and most young people accept what they are taught. Saddest of all, talented women artists will be taught that the highest form of artistic expression is styrofoam vagina sculptures.
Combine that with a belief in the “peaceful, mother goddess worshipping prehistory” theory that refuses to die, and simple economics (namely that there appears to always be a market for this), and you have a recipe for a never-ending chain of solipsistic vagina-gazing that will apparently continue for decades to come.
I didn’t mention Georgia O’Keefe because she always denied any sort of vulvic interpretation of her work. Of course this didn’t stop feminists from glomming onto it.
Some of you might ask what qualifications I have to criticize anybody’s art. I present to you my mascot that I use for my Youtube videos-undoubtedly some of you have seen this already.
I would be the first to tell you it’s rather amateurish. However, bear in mind that last year I purchased a “how to draw” book solely for the purposes of developing skills in cartooning for drawing a logo for my business. This was literally the first visual art experience I have had since elementary school. The fact that my knowledge and ability to convey anatomy, perspective, and color theory, based on a cumulative training time of about a week, is on par with, or in some cases even exceeds, some of these paid “artists”, should really illustrate how inane this feminist “art” is.