Temporary Mumsnet logo -not at all funny!

Over many years, generations even, we've become culturally accustomed to seeing caricatures of politicians and of the rich and famous, some of which exaggerate and lampoon physical features. Some of us may feel uncomfortable about that, but I guess we've no choice but to live with it, as it has become "the norm". However, specific, mocking and unqualified reference to a feature of someone's (anyone's) physical appearance is an entirely different matter. Critical, negative portrayal/comment about someone based on their opinions/behaviour/actions/comments is fair game. The same approach focussed on their physical features is not. It's also disingenuous to imagine that any hurt from such an attack would be limited to the specific target, as there is an inevitable spill-over which will also extend to anyone else who happens to share the physical characteristic of the person being mocked. It's not a carefully aimed single arrow.. it's an indiscriminate, sawn-off shotgun... So let's not pretend otherwise.

Thankfully Smileless

Very well put NanaDana.

Fleurpepper

VS :

'But again, are people offended by all of them or only some?'

That is indeed an excellent question.

And not 'just' about individuals, but groups of people or beliefs.

Indeed.
That explains why the only time in my life I have been accused of bullying is when I have expressed beliefs that Some People don’t like. I have often been told that my posts (and emails or other communications) are calm and measured even when written in the face of exasperating retorts, but when I use the same tone to talk about particular topics then for those people different rules apply. Cognitive dissonance or double standards?

How is the spitting image puppet of Charles that different to the logo. Presumably that would also 'spill over' to those with similar characteristics. I dont have particular feelings about the MN logo but I am really wary of people deciding what is offensive especially when it doesnt seem consistent.

The history of political caricature goes back 100s of years.

The spitting image puppet of Charles was a caricature but for me the MN logo wasn't. I never watched spitting image because I didn't like it and don't like caricatures.

Fleurpepper

The history of political caricature goes back 100s of years.

Thousands, actually, Fleurpepper. There are examples from ancient Egypt, and from the Greek and Roman eras. I wonder if anyone has looked at cave-paintings to see if their are even some prehistoric examples?..

FannyCornforth

I absolutely adore caricatures, from the golden age of Gilray, Rowlandson and Cruikshank onwards.
The Mumsnet thing cannot warrant the label ‘caricature’, it was just some daft stickers put over the MN logo.
It was a bit lazy and pathetic, and really not worth doing.

👍🏻

I've been seeing variations of the Mumsnet logo all weekend

There was one that was a real old red phonebox somewhere but in addition to the ears and crown it had his nose. There was also a picture circulating on facebook of a tampon with crown and his ears.

I haven't laughed at any of them, the suprise is gone

NanaDana

Fleurpepper

The history of political caricature goes back 100s of years.

Thousands, actually, Fleurpepper. There are examples from ancient Egypt, and from the Greek and Roman eras. I wonder if anyone has looked at cave-paintings to see if their are even some prehistoric examples?..

Well yes, drawings yes. Do you have any evidence that any of the cave drawings were 'political' in any way. They described life, and deities, but not politics, did they?

How is the spitting image puppet of Charles that different to the logo

There was no humour to it.
It was pointed.
Their explanation did nothing to persuade anyone otherwise, also.

Galaxy

How is the spitting image puppet of Charles that different to the logo. Presumably that would also 'spill over' to those with similar characteristics. I dont have particular feelings about the MN logo but I am really wary of people deciding what is offensive especially when it doesnt seem consistent.

Spitting Image lampooned everyone in a programme dedicated to comedic political satire.

This wasn't in the same vein at all I don't think.

So now it's not the hurt but whether it's funny? That's getting quite tricky.

Galaxy

So now it's not the hurt but whether it's funny? That's getting quite tricky.

It's not tricky at all. If you understand the tradition and culture of political satire - there is a point / purpose behind it. No-one is singled out for their appearance, they are lampooned for their politics - or for the way they behave, or what they do.

There was no point to the logo - other than to emphasise Charles' ears.

So Spitting Image was just terrible artistry?

Fleurpepper

NanaDana

Fleurpepper

The history of political caricature goes back 100s of years.

Thousands, actually, Fleurpepper. There are examples from ancient Egypt, and from the Greek and Roman eras. I wonder if anyone has looked at cave-paintings to see if their are even some prehistoric examples?..

Well yes, drawings yes. Do you have any evidence that any of the cave drawings were 'political' in any way. They described life, and deities, but not politics, did they?

"Politics" in the broader sense have always been part of the human condition, as in "the activities, attitudes, or behaviours that are used to get or keep power or an advantage within a group". So I guess that "clan politics" back then were just as prevalent as "office politics" can be today. Someone is always manoeuvering for power, and always will be. As for examples of cave drawing caricatures, no, as I said, I wonder about that, but what was the reaction of modern Homo Sapiens when they began to replace the very physically different Neanderthals? They certainly depicted their prey animals, so did they similarly depict their enemies in a way which emphasised their more ape-like features? Who knows?

Spitting Image was barely political near the end of its reign. So you get to decide that there was a point to the artistery? I thought there was a very clear point.

Dickens

Galaxy

So now it's not the hurt but whether it's funny? That's getting quite tricky.

It's not tricky at all. If you understand the tradition and culture of political satire - there is a point / purpose behind it. No-one is singled out for their appearance, they are lampooned for their politics - or for the way they behave, or what they do.

There was no point to the logo - other than to emphasise Charles' ears.

Absolutely.

Especially the last line.

Galaxy

Spitting Image was barely political near the end of its reign. So you get to decide that there was a point to the artistery? I thought there was a very clear point.

You know, I'm not quite sure what you're driving at - we're getting into semantics.

I don't "get to decide" anything. I'm offering an opinion, and it is only an opinion, that the tradition of political satire expressed through the medium of cartoons or 'puppet' shows or whatever method technology now lends itself to, is quite different to a logo that suddenly appears, with no other purpose it seems than to emphasise one aspect of Charles' appearance on the day of his Coronation.

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself and others are free to feel differently, but please don't suggest that I'm positing some kind of 'dictum' on how this issue should be viewed by everyone else.

I'm not going to argue just to continue an argument. I'm happy to debate the points, the relevance of Spitting Image, the whole culture of political satire / cartoons, etc, but when you say so you get to decide - you're making it personal and it's no longer a debate.

I am not making it personal. When I use 'you' I mean anyone who decides what can be heard, seen etc. So all those who got the logo pulled. And MN for caving which is most unlike them.
When we decide what is offensive then there is always a 'you' so to speak.

Since when was Mumsnet a political satire forum?

It's a chat forum aimed at mothers.
It should be neutral, encouraging chat and debate, but with guidelines against what is offensive.

Mumsnet is a community and is not a lobby group. We are independently funded and have no particular political axe to grind
Our aim is to:
Make parents' lives easier by pooling knowledge, advice and support.
We try, as far as possible to let the conversation flow and not to over-moderate. Mumsnet is a site for grown-ups.

Mumsnet seems to have broken its own guidelines.

And before anyone criticises It's a chat forum aimed at mothers

It should perhaps change its name to Parentsnet as Mum is not an inclusive term.
Their choice, not mine.

Agreed, Callistemon.

www.mumsnet.com/i/about-us

… we won’t accept advertising from companies, for products or in formats that we believe are contrary to our mission … The types of product advertising that we turn down … products that we think make women or children feel bad about their bodies …

Whether the constant barrage of adverts aimed at making women’s faces and bodies look “better” is an infringement of their own advertising policy is another matter for debate.

Ridiculing someone’s ears will them feel bad about their body whoever it is. There was no satire here. It was just a cheap shot.

Oh that's an interesting one

Please start a thread on the "parentsnet" idea with "grandparentsnet" thrown in

I would but, it's me, I annoy too many people lol