what an ugly, sexist, arrogant, massive and ultimately useless piece of iconography. Not surprisinglyNorth Koreans had a hand in building the eyesore. The president just comes off as an old, arrogant, fool who would do anything to leave a legacy (no-matter how stupid). I half-expected the man’s head to resemble Wade. 
…and as a side note Wade kicks out the French. However a ‘1 out of 2’ is still a failure in my books.
I don’t think it’s bad as a statue. I think it looks ok and is kind of majestic, if maybe a little bit of a Totalitarian-overlord sense.
I do agree that Economically neither Senegal or North Korea should be spending that kind of money on decoration, and is absurdly wasteful.
Why sexist?
The man is in a particularly dominant position here- he’s clearly above the woman, and holding her kind of possessively. I’m not one for silly claims of sexism, though, and this one is just barely over the line from “silly” to “real”. She’s pretty damn idealized and sexualized, but so is he, really.
He’s helping her over the rocks, with an arm on the back. It’s not sexist and not possessive.
The, incredibly, cut man is literally dragging the female forward. To the future!
The link for “sexist” in the OP concludes with the line:
But the guy is showing about as much thigh as the woman, and is totally topless. If the OP wants to make the case that the female figure is posed in a submissive or secondary way, that’s fine. I just thought that link made a very poor case in claiming the statue was sexist.
And does that make the Statue of Libery sexist? That’s a giant statue of a woman that doesn’t even include a man.
Heh, and look at the proportions. It figures that the man would be 3/2 the size of the woman.
He looks freakishly massive in basic comparison!
You’re just looking for something to be angry about.
It’s probably a waste of money, but I like the statue in question.
It looks like a cover for a comic book. Ridiculously exaggerated and idealized.
That’s the way a statue should be. They’d look pretty stupid if they depicted people as they actually look, wouldn’t they? Who is going to be impressed or inspired by a statue of a guy who is 5’3 and all skin-and-bones? Statues are supposed to be striking and idealized. Mt. Rushmore? Statue of Liberty?
This was my first thought on seeing it, but in that enormous statue, the man and woman are independently and similarly strong. In the Senegalese statue, the woman is virtually passive, being dragged forward into progress or success or whatever by the conspicuously strong man. The man, in also holding the child, is the central pillar of strength and force of motion, and the only one taking personal action and having his feet firmly on the ground to support and propel. In the Soviet statue, the man and woman each wield a tool for progress, each raise their arm and each take a firm step forward into progress (or whatever). Man and woman, like farm and factory, are each themself an engine of strength and progress, and both together needed to drive society forward.
You can interpret the ‘art’ however you want, but it seems to me that the role of the two figures is very different in the Soviet statue than in the Senegalese one.
The idealized man and woman shown in the Soviet depiction also seem less sexualized and more reasonably-proportioned, to me.
I think it’s sexist, because I do think the man appears to be grabbing and holding on tightly to his Venus-ly proportioned woman. Who is absolutely NOT dressed for volcano-climbing out of, thankyouverymuch. It actually makes me happy that feminist groups in Senegal have enough voice and agency to get their views heard. In addition, I think the people crying “sexist,” are a very different group from those who are upset at the woman’s hemline, the latter group being conservative Muslims. All that being said, I don’t think this statute is too outrageous . . . yes it’s really big and expensive in a poor country, and the revenue generated is going to the king of the country (which I think is the most reprehensible part), but at least it’s not a Dear Leader statue.
I kind of like the Soviet statue. I wish we had more in the US dedicated to average people, like to the American farmer, or housewife, or teacher, or whatever. The closest that comes to mind is the Iwo Jima monument, although I’m sure there are others.
Why is the little kid pointing toward America (or at least to the West?). I find the statue to be confused–the woman looks like she’s either doing a jitterbug move (just about to twirl tightly) or is caught in the man’s backdraft. The man seems out of proportion to the rest of the statue. The kid seems like an afterthought, like they thought–oh shit! The man has to be holding something! How about a torch? Nah, that is so Statue of Liberty. Let’s go with–I know!–a kid! Yeah!
I don’t mind it overall–there have been lots worse statues. What is tragic to me is that pic of the women walking through the shanty slums at the base of the statue. Perhaps we could work on the poverty issues rather than waste money on “aesthetics”? 
What do you normally wear?
Perhaps they can ship it to Hawaii, and use it in an episode of Lost.
It is kind of sexist.
But I kind of like it. Beats a lot of the utterly bizarre 1960s public monuments you find in most African capitals.
Sexist? Naw, clearly it’s ageist. The kid is atop and ahead, pointing somewhere; clearly telling them where to go! What if they want to go somewhere else, huh?! Clearly volcano people are ruled by obnoxious children.
My sensible Eddie Bauer rugged hiking skirt and a sweat-wicking top.
It kind of reminds me of the Fountain of Magical Bretheren…
