Tag Archives: yorker

The New Yorker’s Next Cover Features Lady Liberty with Her Light Snuffed Out

by DavidHbuuzadmk Posted on February 3, 2017

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The New Yorker has revealed the cover for its upcoming issue which will feature an image of Lady Liberty with her flame extinguished, a powerful illustration that comes amid the continued fallout from President Donald Trump’s executive order banning refugee resettlement and travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The image also marks a break with the magazine’s longstanding tradition of putting a version of its mascot Eustace Tilley on the cover of its anniversary issue. Françoise Mouly, the magazine’s art director, wrote in a blog post on Friday:

This year, as a response to the opening weeks of the Trump Administration, particularly the executive order on immigration, we feature John W. Tomac’s dark, unwelcoming image, “Liberty’s Flameout.”

“It used to be that the Statue of Liberty, and her shining torch, was the vision that welcomed new immigrants. And, at the same time, it was the symbol of American values,” Tomac says. “Now it seems that we are turning off the light.”

On Friday, the magazine also announced it was canceling its annual party for the White House Correspondent’s Dinner.

Read this article: 

The New Yorker’s Next Cover Features Lady Liberty with Her Light Snuffed Out

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The New Yorker’s Next Cover Features Lady Liberty with Her Light Snuffed Out

The Constitution doesn’t care about your uterus

by ShaniAtkinson Posted on May 21, 2015

The Constitution doesn’t care about your uterus

By on 21 May 2015commentsShare

There’s a moment in almost every American woman’s life when she thinks to herself: “Hold up — why are we still arguing about what I can and cannot do with my uterus?” And then she realizes that there is no sense-making answer to that question, and that the fact that the debate exists at all is definitively absurd.

Jill Lepore, in this week’s issue of The New Yorker, sheds some light on why we’re stuck in a hellish tango around the constitutional validity of our reproductive rights:

The Constitution never mentions sex, marriage, or reproduction. This is because the political order that the Constitution established was a fraternity of free men who, believing themselves to have been created equal, consented to be governed. Women did not and could not give their consent: they were neither free nor equal. Rule over women lay entirely outside a Lockean social contract in a relationship not of liberty and equality but of confinement and subjugation. As Mary Astell wondered, in 1706, “If all Men are born free, how is it that all Women are born Slaves?”

Essentially, the Constitution is inadequate. It speaks directly only to the sort of people who were enfranchised in 1787; the rest of us are left to make arguments by amendment and, failing that, by indirection.

I’m not going to waste your time with my take on it — just go read the whole thing.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading here: 

The Constitution doesn’t care about your uterus

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Constitution doesn’t care about your uterus