These illustrations were created in the 40's or 50's. What do any of you know about the morals and customs of those times. Are any of you over 30 years old? What do you know about Illustrators of that era and their themes and reasons for the setup and setting portrayed? Obviously, very little. These illustrations need to be placed inside the proper context of the time of their creation and the mores and values of that era.

Another shocker for you. The illustrator is a WOMAN! Zoe Mozert. You're being oppressed by symbology created by a woman. But then she was mentored by a manipulative, oppressive man-mentor. She couldn't have actually enjoyed making this art except if she was used or oppressed by a man. (I'm trying to save you the effort of replying with the usual dogma tripe.)

You obviously are interpreting her art from your own time perspective, not realizing that the reason for the "attack" or "surprise element" of the illustration is because there was no other way a woman could be shown as exposing so much bare skin and still be depicted as an "innocent" back in those times. The short skirt with the attacking goose is just over the top. This was 20 years before the advent of the Miniskirt. It's a Fantasy setup, perhaps an homage to some other painting. Hint, hint. The goose could symbolize any number of things. Go ahead -- you pick the most exploitative one and run with that.

Before you jump to erroneous conclusions that your interpretation of this art has any bearing to the facts of the matter you should do some more homework. You get a D- for your shallow dogmatic efforts.

I'm a Victim! They're exploiting me! I'm being attacked by nasty, manipulative old white men! I'm a Victim! The sky is falling....