Daring Dog urinates on Fearless Girl

In pop culture, somehow women can be praised only by painting them as superior to men.  The latest example of this can be seen in the "Fearless Girl" statue.  On Wall Street, back in 1989, an artist made a statue of a raging bull.  The statue, "Charging Bull," was meant to symbolize the power of the stock market when it is on an upswing.

But then a second artist, Kristen Visbal, commissioned in 2017 by investment management firm State Street Global Advisors to promote its "SHE" gender diversity index, decided to put a statue of a girl, her arms akimbo, in front of the bull.  Immediately, the meaning of the first statue changed.  Instead of being a statue about raging markets, the pair of statues became a play on how women (the girl) are stronger than men (the bull).  The artist who made the "Fearless Girl" statue was no doubt intending to be provocative; she could have put her statue anywhere.  She purposefully put it in front of an animal that happens to be male.

Suddenly, art that was not intentionally about masculinity became an artwork that denigrated men as weaker than not merely women, but little girls.

The artist who made the bull statue, Arturo Di Modica, hated "Fearless Girl" for what it did to his work, but liberals loved it, and the "Fearless Girl" statue was allowed to stay.

However, this decision was not universally popular with locals, as you can see from some the man below, who is not Leonardo DiCaprio, who simulated an Anthony Weiner maneuver.

Now a third artist has made another statue of a dog urinating on the Fearless Girl.

This weekend, New York artist Alex Gardega decided he'd had enough.

While "messing around" in his studio, Gardega decided to create a small sculpture of a urinating dog, which he placed beside the "Fearless Girl" statue's left leg for several hours Monday, drawing curious and angry onlookers and unleashing the latest round in the battle of Wall Street statues.

"The logic explains itself," Gardega told The Washington Post. "The dog invading her space is reflective of her invading the space that belongs to the bull."

"I happen to know someone who knows the artist who made the bull, and so I know what he put into that work," he added. "He dropped about $350,000 of his own money into the sculpture, and 'Fearless Girl' statue changes the meaning."

Naturally, feminists are outraged when it is their ox that is being gored.

You have to wonder: why do feminists feel they have to show their superiority over men to promote women?  Why do men have to be subjugated for women to feel capable?

Maybe because it has nothing to do with women feeling capable, but everything to do with feminists who hate men and want to bash them every chance they get.  If women want to succeed in life, why don't they simply succeed in life?

On television shows, why can't women be smart without being surrounded by stupid men?  Why can't 110-pound women in movies be admirable without beating up 200-pound men?  It's part of a culture that ostensibly promotes "wimmen and gurls, wimmen and gurls" but is really about using art and the media to make men second-class citizens.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

In pop culture, somehow women can be praised only by painting them as superior to men.  The latest example of this can be seen in the "Fearless Girl" statue.  On Wall Street, back in 1989, an artist made a statue of a raging bull.  The statue, "Charging Bull," was meant to symbolize the power of the stock market when it is on an upswing.

But then a second artist, Kristen Visbal, commissioned in 2017 by investment management firm State Street Global Advisors to promote its "SHE" gender diversity index, decided to put a statue of a girl, her arms akimbo, in front of the bull.  Immediately, the meaning of the first statue changed.  Instead of being a statue about raging markets, the pair of statues became a play on how women (the girl) are stronger than men (the bull).  The artist who made the "Fearless Girl" statue was no doubt intending to be provocative; she could have put her statue anywhere.  She purposefully put it in front of an animal that happens to be male.

Suddenly, art that was not intentionally about masculinity became an artwork that denigrated men as weaker than not merely women, but little girls.

The artist who made the bull statue, Arturo Di Modica, hated "Fearless Girl" for what it did to his work, but liberals loved it, and the "Fearless Girl" statue was allowed to stay.

However, this decision was not universally popular with locals, as you can see from some the man below, who is not Leonardo DiCaprio, who simulated an Anthony Weiner maneuver.

Now a third artist has made another statue of a dog urinating on the Fearless Girl.

This weekend, New York artist Alex Gardega decided he'd had enough.

While "messing around" in his studio, Gardega decided to create a small sculpture of a urinating dog, which he placed beside the "Fearless Girl" statue's left leg for several hours Monday, drawing curious and angry onlookers and unleashing the latest round in the battle of Wall Street statues.

"The logic explains itself," Gardega told The Washington Post. "The dog invading her space is reflective of her invading the space that belongs to the bull."

"I happen to know someone who knows the artist who made the bull, and so I know what he put into that work," he added. "He dropped about $350,000 of his own money into the sculpture, and 'Fearless Girl' statue changes the meaning."

Naturally, feminists are outraged when it is their ox that is being gored.

You have to wonder: why do feminists feel they have to show their superiority over men to promote women?  Why do men have to be subjugated for women to feel capable?

Maybe because it has nothing to do with women feeling capable, but everything to do with feminists who hate men and want to bash them every chance they get.  If women want to succeed in life, why don't they simply succeed in life?

On television shows, why can't women be smart without being surrounded by stupid men?  Why can't 110-pound women in movies be admirable without beating up 200-pound men?  It's part of a culture that ostensibly promotes "wimmen and gurls, wimmen and gurls" but is really about using art and the media to make men second-class citizens.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

RECENT VIDEOS