In “The Woman Question,” Stephen Leacock uses empty stereotypes that he cannot support with evidence to explain why women are unable to advance in society. . He has no evidence because women were never given the opportunity to prove or disprove these hypotheses. Instead, he uses fear and humor to undermine the fight for women's rights and the importance of voting rights. In “Ammunition!” ", author Jessie Sime rejects these stereotypes by demonstrating that when given the opportunity, women completely debunk these stereotypes. Sime creates strong female characters and makes the argument that it is not the physical factory that represents liberation but rather the right to choose, in order to dismantle Leacock's reasoning. Comparing these two works reveals that women's progress in society does not come from what women can or cannot do, but rather from what they are given the opportunity to do.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Leacock uses a female caricature to perpetuate the stereotype of strong women as angry, irrational, annoying, relentless, and scary. He ridicules this caricature and her opinions, calling her a "horrible woman", characterized by her "screams" and "screams" about women's rights with "an ax in her hand, smashing glass" (Leacock 512). This nameless character categorized as the Awful Woman is immediately stripped of her individual identity. She has no name because she only serves to represent a stereotype. The descriptions of her shrill views portray women who fight for women's rights as angry, scary, and irrational. Leacock discusses this woman's fear and argues that "men of the modern age, living indoors and losing some of their coarser fibers, began to fear her...and the Awful Woman, – indiscreet, noisy, intrusive, – took on its full meaning” (512). Her description arouses fear of this woman and therefore, considering her as a universal representation, the fear of all women who speak about women's rights. His suggestion that she is intrusive and intrusive shows his annoyance with this provocative woman. Furthermore, Leacock discredits all of her opinions by using humor to ridicule her. She states that "when women have the right to vote...there will be no more war [because] women will forbid it", and Leacock "hopes that Awful Woman will [explain] how the war would end" , but she is not (510). Her incomplete argument presents it as illogical and ridiculous. Her anonymity makes her a universal representation of women, suggesting that all women are equally illogical and ridiculous. This stereotypical caricature represents a negative stereotype and perpetuates prejudice against women, which justifies male domination. If all women are angry, irrational, annoying, relentless and fearful, then of course men must assert their dominance and power to maintain order and stability. This bias assumes that women are incapable of being rational and calm and encourages the idea that, therefore, women in power are something to be feared, which justifies the lack of opportunities available to them. Sime undermines Leacock's caricature of the awful woman by depicting a wide range of different and unique women for whom there is no uniform description. While Bertha Martin sits on the buson the way to the factory, she notices "here and there... a pretty young, red face, talking... talking... an older face, a face that knows the world" and a group of girls "loud, noisy, talking ceaselessly — extraordinarily happy” (Sime 485). These women are described differently, without any stereotypical image being able to categorize them all. The diversity of women on the bus alone suggests the incapacity of a single stereotype. The women on the bus are also not angry but “extraordinarily happy” (485). Leacock's stereotype is now not only inadequate to describe the diversity of the group of women, but also inaccurate. These women are giddy with happiness and enjoy their light-hearted conversation, which is completely different from the awful woman depicted in "The Woman's Question." Additionally, the repetition of the protagonist's full name, "Bertha Martin," throughout the narrative establishes an individual identity distinct from social structures. Bertha is not defined by a husband with the prefix “Mrs.,” nor simplified by her last name, “Martin,” which the mistress of the house where she previously worked calls her (486). Bertha is a unique individual who is not defined by her role in the household or her marital status. The use of her full name has the effect of directly rejecting Leacock's universal "Awful Woman." Breaking the stereotype and hoping to end prejudice, Sime refutes Leacock's assumptions about women making it difficult to justify male dominance and questions why women are not given the same opportunities as men if they are all as diverse and rational. women is that they cannot work together towards a common goal. He confidently states that “women will never be able to be a team of anything,” because women are “too crooked” and “can’t be trusted” (Leacock 511). Leacock uses this stereotype to justify why women could never go into business because this field requires a lot of teamwork. However, he has no evidence to support his claim that women cannot work in teams. Ironically, when describing the Awful Woman's views on the war, he ridicules her for having no reasoning to back up her claims - but he also cannot support that claim with evidence. The reason there is no proof for Leacock's statement is because there has never before been an opportunity for women to work together as a team to prove him wrong. Women have not been given the chance to work in business, but Leacock asserts male dominance by using an unbearable stereotype to justify why they cannot. In “Ammunition!” » by Sime, the camaraderie between the workers on the bus provides a powerful counterargument to Leacock. . Bertha “looks around at her companions” and her interactions with the other women refute the assumption that women cannot work in teams (Sime 485). The diction of this phrase, specifically using the word companions and not colleagues or fellow citizens, evokes a feeling of unity. There is no dishonesty, as Leacock suggests, nor distrust. Rather, there is friendship and support when “women’s eyes [meet]…they smile at each other.” Work colleagues – together in the world! » (487). The eye contact between Bertha and the other woman on the bus is encouraging. There is a bond of unity between these women as they enter the workforce and come together for this new and exciting stage of their lives. Sime proves through this unifying scene on the bus that women can work together and demonstrates that.