In "The Woman Question", Stephen Leacock uses empty stereotypes that he cannot support with evidence to argue why women are unable to advance in society. It has no proof because women have never been given the opportunity to prove or disprove these hypotheses. Instead, she uses fear and humor to undermine the fight for women's rights and the importance of suffrage. In “Ammunitions!”, author Jessie Sime refutes these stereotypes by demonstrating that, when given the opportunity, women completely dispel these stereotypes. Sime creates strong female characters and argues that it is not the physical factory that represents liberation but rather the right to choose, thus dismantling Leacock's reasoning. Comparing these two works reveals that progress for women in society does not come from what women can and 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayLeacock uses a female caricature to perpetuate the stereotype of strong women as angry, irrational, annoying, relentless, and fearsome. He ridicules this caricature and her views, calling her "the terrible woman" characterized by "screaming" and "howling" about women's rights with "a hatchet in her hand, breaking the glass" (Leacock 512). This nameless character, classified as the Terrible Woman, is immediately stripped of her individual identity. It doesn't have a name because it's only meant to represent a stereotype. Descriptions of her shouting opinions illustrate women fighting for women's rights as angry, scary, and irrational. Leacock invokes fear of this woman and argues that "the men of the modern age, living at home and losing something of their rougher fibre, began to fear her... and the Terrible Woman, - scheming, vociferous, intrusive , - came into play" (512). Her description instills fear towards this woman and consequently, observing her as a universal representation, fear of all women who talk about Women's Rights. His suggestion that she is pushy and scheming shows his annoyance with this rebellious woman. Furthermore, Leacock discredits all of her opinions by using humor to ridicule her. She states that "when women have the vote... there will be no more war [because] women will forbid it", and Leacock "hope[es] that the Terrible Woman [will explain] how the war would end", however she does not he does (510). Her incomplete argument portrays her as illogical and ridiculous. Her anonymity serves to make her a universal representation of women, suggesting that all women are illogical and even ridiculous. This stereotypical caricature represents a negative stereotype and perpetuates prejudice against women, which justifies male dominance. If all women are angry, irrational, annoying, relentless, and fearsome, then obviously men must assert their dominance and power to maintain order and stability. This prejudice assumes that women are incapable of being rational and calm and encourages the idea that, as a result, women in power are something to be feared, which justifies the lack of opportunities available to them. Sime undermines Leacock's caricature of the Terrible Woman by describing a wide range of diverse and unique women for whom there is no uniform description. As Bertha Martin sits on the bus heading to the factory, she notices "here and there... a pretty, young, flushed face, talking... talking... an older face, a face that knows the world" and a group of “noisy” girls,noisy, always talking – extraordinarily happy” (Sime 485). These women are described differently without a single stereotypical image capable of classifying them all. Just the diversity of women on the bus suggests the inadequacy of a single stereotype. Even the women on the bus are not angry but “extraordinarily happy” (485). Leacock's stereotype today is not only inadequate to describe the heterogeneous group of women, but it is also inaccurate. These women are thrilled with happiness and enjoy their carefree conversation, which is completely dissimilar to the Terrible Woman described in "The Woman Question". Furthermore, the repetition of the protagonist's full name, "Bertha Martin", throughout the narrative establishes an individual identity separate from social structures. Bertha is not referred to by a husband with the prefix “Mrs.”, nor is she simplified to her surname, “Martin,” as the landlady where she previously works calls her (486). Bertha is a unique individual who is not defined by her role in the home or her marital status. The effect of using her full name is a direct rejection of Leacock's universal "Awful Woman". Breaking down the stereotype and hoping to stop prejudice, Sime disproves Leacock's assumptions about women, making it difficult to justify male dominance, and asks why women don't have the same opportunities as men if they are equally diverse and rational. women is that they cannot work together towards a common goal. She confidently states that “women could never be a team of anything,” because women are “too dishonest” and “impossible to trust” (Leacock 511). Leacock uses this stereotype to justify why women could never pursue entrepreneurship as this field requires a lot of teamwork. However, she has no evidence to support her claim that women cannot work in teams. Ironically, when describing the Terrible Woman's views on war, he ridicules her for having no reasoning to support her claims, but cannot even support this claim with evidence. The reason there is no evidence to support Leacock's claim 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 opportunity to work in business, yet Leacock asserts male dominance by using an unbearable stereotype to justify why they can't. In "Ammunitions!" by Sime, the camaraderie among the women working on the bus provides a strong counterargument to Leacock. . Bertha “look[s] at her companions” and her interactions with the other women belie the assumption that women cannot work in teams (Sime 485). The diction in this sentence, specifically using the word comrades and not colleagues or fellow citizens, evokes a sense of togetherness. There is no dishonesty, as Leacock suggests, or distrust. In contrast, there is friendship and support when “women's eyes [meet]…smile at each other. Colleagues – out into the world together!” (487). The eye contact between Bertha and the other woman on the bus is supportive and encouraging. There is a bond of unity among these women who are entering the workforce and coming together for this new and exciting phase of their lives. Sime demonstrates through this unifying scene on the bus that women can work together and proves that when given the chance, women make great colleagues and teammates. Once again Sime debunks Leacock's thesis. She has no evidence or support for her claim, while Sime has experienced the “social pressures faced by working-class women” as a working woman at.