Our thanks to a number of people for sending us this.
One the one hand defacing a statue of Queen Victoria is just the latest act of cultural vandalism by yet another talentless feminist – ‘artist’ Vaj Graaf, real name unknown – but I have to say I laughed when I saw the result of her ‘work’. We can be very sure, however, that as she’s a feminist ‘artist’, the humour is unintentional.
A tweet from the genius, in response to online criticisms:
It aint vandalism it’s a statement. LOVE THE VAJ
She told the Bristol Post:
The art world is male dominated. Fact. Street art is male dominated. Fact. So I’ve got to represent. I’ve got to redress the balance. [Quite why she has ‘got to’, remains a mystery.]
Queen Vic was a power woman. She was the original feminist and she was proud. All I did was show her how she wanted to be seen. What’s so offensive about that?
Queen Victoria was ‘the original feminist’, eh? A ridiculous statement, displaying the utter ignorance which is a trademark of feminists. From Queen Victoria’s letter to Theodore Martin, 29 May 1870:
The Queen is most anxious to enlist every one who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights’, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feeling and propriety.
Sticking with it. I’m too working class (and well hung) to let that one slide. 😉
‘Quite why she has ‘got to’, remains a mystery … ‘
In much the same way that girls who find a better prospect of a night out have ‘got’ to wash their hair that evening, and in much the same way as men have ‘got’ to do their share of the domestic tasks. If a woman wants it done it must be done, and if the task is disagreeable, difficult, dirty or downright dangerous, a man must do it.
Be, not ‘get’; you could be hanged.
“You could get hanged…” – not “hung.” Tut. But yes, feminist art has no creative value. It’s only ever been about female body parts and functions – very much the equivalent of drawing a cock and balls on a bus stop (which I admit I still find hilarious, it has to be said; especially those that are rendered wider than they are tall) – but body parts that have been worshipped for millennia anyway and feature in some of the earliest non-devotional art, even if most erotic art has been excised from public view.
Does this reinforce the idea (right or wrong it matters not) that the only thing of worth that this ‘artist’ –
and by extension all women – have is their “VAJ”?
I thought they wanted to be accepted into the world of self actualised grown ups on their abilities rather than a mere endowment of nature posessed (so I’m told) by all females.
Perhaps the poor girl has her ideas a little mixed up.
That’ll be the patriarchy with it’s inherent rape culture that’s done that I expect.
Like Elizabeth I before her, Queen Victoria felt there was one rule for her and one for everyone else. And also like Elizabeth, Victoria’s primary relationships were with men.