This drawing places the value of a woman in her purity and desirability. Which is a deeply misogynistic philosophy. Her long hair, slender features, and sharp facial features showcase her traditional femininity. Her loose turtleneck, billowing overcoat, and demure expression portray her as reserved. That reservation combined with her connection to nature are meant to portray her purity as a woman. To contrast her reservation, her thighs are exposed, only covered by her coat and high socks. This area of the thigh exposed by thigh high socks is frequently fetishized by Japanese men due to their common appearance on the middle-school and high-school uniform of young girls. The point of this drawing is to depict a woman as valuable because she possesses traits desirable to a man. She’s feminine, she’s reserved, she’s pure, she’s sexy, and she’s young. Drawings like these often act as symbols for men to judge women by. As a result or as a cause of the art’s creation, men feel disappointed by the reality of women existing for their own happiness in comparison to a fictional woman whose entire purpose is to serve their desire. So, do I think the artist is a misogynist? Well, I think the artist is human. A human who has lived their entire life in a culture drenched in misogyny, and inevitably makes art reflecting that culture. I doubt the artist put any conscious hate into this drawing. I do honestly believe they just wanted to draw a pretty woman. But all art is a reflection of the real world. So it is impossible for art to exist and not say something about the real world, no matter how small. ALL art is political. Yes, even that one.