He does, yes, but he is at least openly indicating that his whole “fear the cooties” phase is ending; he is making it apparent that Dorothy can influence his feelings (to the point of shame, in this case, which might be new to him), and the “smooch” comment would be a dead giveaway even to those who do not know about the night before (basically the rest of the class, minus Mike of course).
someone should just make a smooch chart for everyone who’s kissed so we can see people who have indirectly kissed each other. Like since walky kissed dorothy he has also kissed danny and by an extension billy and everyone she’s kissed. 😛
I recommend she create a Congressional committee to study the kissing habits of college students at State U. (have we gotten a name for this college yet?)
i agree, and find myself pondering the variations on that sentence. hell, it’s practically essay fodder:
— “No woman should have to give up her career for family, but it’s okay if she chooses to do so because she wants to.”
— “No woman should have to give up her family for her career, but it’s okay if she chooses to do so because she wants to.”
— “No man should have to give up his career for family, but it’s okay if he chooses to do so because he wants to.”
— “No man should have to give up his family for his career, but it’s okay if he chooses to do so because he wants to.”
in the interest of brevity though i’ll just say that culturally enforced life priorities can go eat a bag of dicks in a general sense. (i didn’t have any specific dicks in mind, no.)
I’m eagerly waiting to see if, since she’s already brought up the topic of women being forced into home roles, she approaches the companion topic of men being forced into provider roles.
Or for that matter how temporally displaced these roles are in a society where generally a dual income is needed to raise a family anyway.
It has the potential to be a very interesting lecture. I’d like to see Joyce’s reaction when she realizes exactly what kind of income and job security she’d need in a husband for being a stay at home mom to be a feasible option.
If you are looking for sticker material, you can axe both “I’ll just say” and “in a general sense”.
That would make a two-lines sticker. Definitely something you have to stop to read, but not cumberstone as far as bumpers go.
It would be nice if it were more of a choice. For example, if daycare were less insanely expensive, or more subsidized, or otherwise less of a burden. I knew a well-paid scientist who left her job because it was cheaper to take care of her new child than to keep her job and pay for daycare. (She was a biologist who was a fundie and denied evolution, so no great loss, but still.)
No great loss to science, but certainly a great loss to her, personally. I know what you mean.
My sister-in-law used to work at a daycare, and they cut back her hours to less than 20 a week so she no longer qualified for free child care. Suddenly it was more affordable for her not to work. I guess the upside is I can see my nephew a little bit more often, but it was a pretty big blow to their wallets.
That’s a character I’d’ve liked to have seen lol. I was hHeero Yuy from Gundam Wing. No one knew I was cosplaying lol.
My favorite part of the con was Eric vale during a spur of the moment 18+ panel where he told Vic manyana stories
I heard once that blue used to be the feminine colour because the Virgin Mary was often depicted wearing blue, and pink used to be the masculine colour because it’s considered a shade of red, which represents blood and is therefore manly. But I can’t remember where I heard it or why the colours switched genders.
That movie had other problems though, not so much from a feminist perspective, but from a class-relations one. Not only couldn’t I dig her being friends with the rich white girl (seriously, what a dumb plot point) but on top of that, they never even encroached upon the idea, if they were such good friends, of her lending the protagonist money with reasonable terms. Disney’s revisionism of its own bullshit mythology is always so half-assed.
I agree with what Leslie’s saying and honestly, I find it’s a distracting part of movies nowadays and another reason why people can never be more original because they have to follow the same guidelines. I feel like Joyce, Dorothy and Walky all have good points and that it can be a person to person issue. Joyce being the more monogomous person, Dorothy being more work focused, and walky simply wanting to have fun and get the most out of life.
At the end of the day, everyone just wants to be happy. And yet, happiness can be found in the least expected ways, and often the best kinds of happiness are found unexpectedly. Not always, and not for everyone, but often enough.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting a career over settling down and perhaps if she had put that in the form of an ultimatum or just broke up with Danny in high school there wouldn’t be that drama.
Dosn’t appear that anyone actually answered her question. They did all give good opinions, but those arn’t exactly answers. Leslie, you have a class of teenagers-count yourself lucky if you are ‘ever’ in the loop.
In my college experience the professor isn’t nesessarily looking for an answer. I found that they were usually looking for an “intelligent sounding” response to their class inquery to see if anyone is listening.
I always found I could coast through most in-class discussions, and look fairly knowledgeable, using a technique that basically amounted to the cold reading that “psychics” use to amaze you with information about yourself. If I hadn’t read the material, I’d make a really general statement that could apply to anything, then let everyone else tell me what I needed to know to make brilliant-sounding statements about books I hadn’t opened.
Something that turns me off of so many rom-coms is that fact that the heroine starts off as a successful no-nonsense business woman, but we quickly learn that the moral of the story is that it’s never enough. … Except that for many women, it IS enough. Not every woman, but many.
I swear, dude, you are no longer allowed to respond to every female who posts any indication that she’s dissatisfied with anything with “but white straight dudes have it just as bad too!” Even if it were true, it’s a weaselly, shitty thing to do. It’s not how amicable conversation works. I will not have the consequences of your posts on My Other Webcomic occur here as well.
So stop.
Seriously. It’s fucking obnoxious. Cut it out.
You will have no response to this post. No “Sorry, won’t do it again,” or “Okay, but, to be fair…” Just don’t do it. No more. Quietly move on, and find other ways in which to comment.
Man, I’m so glad you responded to this. I kept trying to figure out a non jerky way to respond to “gender studies” should include man’s problems. Ridiculous. APPLAUSE for calling him out.
I’m not going to say men have it as bad as women on TV because that’d just be absurd. What I think *is* the case is that men are put into boxes as well. Dumb dads/leads (every Matt Groening and Seth McFarlane show), filanderers who don’t care about anything (Two and a Half Men, Barney from HIMYM), etc.
There’s also a lot of pressure from society for a man to work to support his family, maybe not as much there is for a woman to stop working and raise that family, but it’s not insignificant either. Can anybody name a sitcom with a high-powered executive Mom and a poet stay-at-home Dad?
Also, “gender studies” *should* study men, too. Otherwise they should change it back to “women’s studies.”
In fairness, in concept I can understand, as anyone dealing with the question of a male being called “girly” will tell you there are mens problems on the subject, but it’s a bit of a matter of degrees and context.
The truth is that in a patriarchy “men’s problems” are so different from women’s, and largely so much lesser, as to make them understandably ignored. One of the bigger weaknesses in this approach is that it does cause a bit of ignorance as to the degree to which women are actually subconciously looked down upon by the system. For instance battered husbands and boyfriends are less likely to report and be believed due to the fact that that’s seen as a “women’s problem” as well as the fact that they are seen as “less masculine” for being unable to handle it when a woman is violent towards them. Similar with the issue of child molestation. An adult male molests a girl (or boy) he’s a monster, but you see way too many responses to a middle school boy being molested that he’s “lucky” or that “he’s going to have to learn you’ve got to work for it from now on” or similar.
Mind you, as I said, these issues again A: can pretty easily be seen as having their roots in anti-woman sentiment, and B: are really not large concerns in the face of the issues women by large, as well as LGBTQPA+ people have to deal with.
Oh, and C: They should never be used to argue down the importance of women’s issues. So yea, johannohwitzer is full of crap and deserved the telling off. Thanks David. I may rag on about the Piggy-Kermit thing, but we’re at least coming from similar places mentally.
And Aegon01: I do agree, if it’s only dealing with the woman specific sections, “women’s studies” is a better name for the class, although you get a lot of right wingers attacking programs named that as “sexist”. Mind you, gender studies also needs to deal with issues like LGBT+ that could be said to provide an additional dimension to gender studies as commonly thought of.
Thank you because I would’ve been able to sit there for that long writing all that.
Because I myself see and feel some of the social pressures that have to be lived up to because of me being a man, but damn the shit that the non-danglers have to withstand with on top of a myriad of menstrual problems that you have to be extremely covert about.
Mostly what I’ve seen if the effects of our media on womens self-confidence.
Both you and Turkishproverb are on the right path with this. When ic comes down to it, everyone has stereotypes placed on them by society in both a larger cultural sense and a smaller community sense. And they suck, especially when you don’t fit that mold. However, as a woman I can tell you that it’s personally infuriating when I try to bring up these very real and important issues only to be dismissed as overreacting or overemotional or that men have problems too so that balances everything out. I understand that being a good man in this culture isn’t easy, but that doesn’t make our lives as women any easier. … OK, that was my rant for the evening.
Men have lots of bias’s against them. Men are less caring, less good with children. Men are more warmongering etc.
Did you see that film poster with the heart over the woman in the right place, but on the man it was over the penis?
Isnt that highly offensive ?
The critical difference is the negative male sterotypes make them unsuitable for lower paid jobs. Ie. A man might be bias against if trying to get a job in, say, childcare.
A woman, however, might be biased against when picking a rockscientist, which would be a vastly higher paid job.
This is why male bias tends to be less damaging, although it really shouldn’t be ignored in any studies class as it can still be a horrible thing.
One thing though, it feels easier, almost fun, to fall into these stereotypes in comparison to women’s.
Us men’s stereotypes make it somewhat more acceptable to be goofy and want to avoid responsibility. Cause thats honestly what many people want to do on some level cause thats why we get drunk, to avoid our problems, to become stupider and drop our restraints.
So even though men do have restrictions, I’d say I rather have to be like James Bond or the Old Spice Guy rather than say feel bad about my body cause I’m not the same build as a photo-shopped supermodel.
A female friend of mine said she perceived that it was considered more acceptable for a young woman to drift along without settling into one career path than a young man, presumably because there was still some assumption she’d probably get married and become a housewife anyway. I hadn’t considered this before.
I’m pretty sure (or I hope) “Men’s issues are insignificant” is not what Willis had in mind when he wrote that so much as “Men’s issues should not be used as an interruption or justification for women’s issues”.
It saddens me that you twisted it that way, and more so by the thought that you actually believe that.
Maybe I missed this guys long history of replying with “but white straight dudes have it just as bad too!” but that seems really harsh considering this seems to be the only comment he’s made in this way in the last few days. Yes, I checked.
David this post of yours has made me lose a majority of respect for you. I understand that DoA is your brainchild and that you put a lot of time and effort into putting these strips out everyday. I don’t usually agree with the way you portray some of your characters, but they are yours and I respect that. Still to see you lash out at people who voice a contrary opinion is just sad and pathetic. I would understand if you just banned johannhowitzer, but instead you attack him. It is easy to see that there is some sort of history with this guy, but that doesn’t excuse your behavior. I expected more from you Mr. Willis. I am sorry you weren’t as strong as I thought you were.
I don’t usually post because my comments would just start flame wars that are really unnecessary, but I felt that I needed to say something here.
You’re just seeing the tail end of something here, Sharogen. This guy is always derailing points of feminist critical inquiry in order to push an agenda that somehow frames straight men as as equal, or greater victims in the current world order. Don’t get bent out of shape just because he’s being dealt with. Beside’s this is David’s house here. His rules.
Okay, this is a clear case of issue derailment. This is a common problem when the focus is supposed to be on women’s issues to bring up mens issues, especially when it is an attempt at justification. Both genders have issues, and the existence of similar issues for the opposite gender do not solve the problems for the issues or make either of them “okay” so shame on you johann. BUT also, shame on you David for belittling the issues of men instead of just pointing out the above clearly, thus allowing Samuel to do the same and further irritate and indirectly derail the subject further.
I find the “who’s it worse for, men or women?” discussion about RomComs to be a little shortsighted. The issue is not whether women or men are generally portrayed one way or another, but rather the fact that ANYONE – man, woman or transgender; straight or gay – are portrayed as “broken” for veering off the path to a traditional nuclear family.
I like to use “Failure to Launch” as an example of a typical offender that cuts both ways:
Matthew McConaughey’s character is a successful boat salesman with an unconventional living situation: he lives at home with his parents and refuses to pursue a family of his own after the tragic death of his fiance. He is pressured throughout the film to give up his unconventional lifestyle in exchange for a longterm romance in a traditional living situation with SJP.
Sarah Jessica Parker’s character is equally successful, but her job is unconventional: she provides therapeutic, simulated relationships in exchange for money. She is pressured to give up her job in exchange for an exclusive, traditional long-term relationship with McConaughey.
Now you could easily argue that SJP is being forced to give up a career while McConaughey is simply being forced to cope with his traumatic experience, but the underlying moral is that BOTH had to give up whatever unconventional traits defined them in order to fit into societal norms, which are presented as an ultimate goal.
Anyway, I guess what I’m trying to say is that the argument of who is more downtrodden on the battlefield of romantic comedies is a victor-less battle. We can all agree that stories that idealize a hetero-normative nuclear family over all other lifestyles are damaging to everyone, regardless of sex or gender.
This. And if I may springboard, with an apology, and David if you will be unreasonably patient with me in my attempt to reconcile…
My views are still forming, and as such I realize I come across as harse, but this is not my wish and it has happened, and I am profoundly sorry to have offended so many people and sorry Willis for dragging my ego in here as I try to figure things out.
I do not see male problems as “equal” to female problems, but I do see them as intertwined and I see the male side of the equation flying under the radar for the most part, and I see that as dangerous for both men and women. We are in the same boat, and yes I believe women’s problems deserve every iota of attention they get, and I applaud anyone who stands up for young women. In attempting to divert part of the attention to male problems I have probably only made the situation worse by doing it in such a callous, ill-worded, and ill-timed fashion. I beg your forgiveness and hope this harm may be reversed.
What good is an apology if you ignore the specific requests of the person you’re apologizing to? Do you have no respect for me? Because that’s what you’ve demonstrated. And as such, I do not accept your apology, because without respect, there is no apology.
But at least you got to say a few more sentences about your thoughts on the subject, right? Because that was what was most important, not the apology.
(Which, by the way, is exactly what I wanted to prevent by asking you to not respond and to instead change your behavior in the future.)
I will assume a real apology has taken place if you do not respond to this. I mean it. Not a word. Not even an “Okay.”
This is part of why I like Stargate SG1 so much. Carter develops so well. Of course people like to be in love, but they managed to steer clear of the possible easy cliche’s and eventually found her a love interest that she was equal (and in many ways superior) to, and never gave up her job (or significant plot) to be with. In fact, where I’m at right now (mid Season 8), he’s moving closer to her =P
Boom for the under-appreciated world of adventure television!
The worst part about most Rom-coms is anyone who is successful, male or female, is insufferable to everyone around them because they haven’t found the person to change them into a tolerable human being.
No one is ever successful and content and single. On top of that, if they do attempt to date it is made to be a bigger deal then all of the success they have achieved through their entire life.
It says, you can’t be single and content, it must be that you just don’t know what you are missing and are afraid because you don’t know how to go out on a date. These same people that know how to dress themselves for the business lunches and dinners they have been going to for a decade, can’t dress themselves and get nervous to the point of stupidity.
But of course they will never know what real life is until they give up everything they spent years and money to achieve.
That convention probably originated in trying to make non-successful audience members feel better- the old “s/he may be rich, but are they happy?” cliche.
My husband doesn’t read this strip, but I showed him this one and his response was to shout out “The White Zone is for loading and unloading only!” And then said that should’ve been the strip title.
I don’t entirely disagree…
Poor Leslie. This is what happens when you only manage to read three DoA strips every other month.
And now the general side of this trope. Much easier to agree with. Now we’re not dealing with a specific example that involves miss Piggy an…unsuitible example to say the least.
That’s the problem with discussing a lot of this stuff.
Specifically, is there anything wrong with X example? No, that was a perfectly valid thing for Y to do. They issue comes when all the Ys in all the Xs do the same thing.
It’s more that there’s a bigger problem in the piggy-kermit relationship than the woman giving up her career for a man. Namely, the abusive partner using “giving up her career” to get the other member of the relationship who had removed himself from it back, and gain additional power in an already unbalanced relationship in which he feels guilty for getting the fuck out while he could.
Demographic comparisons and examples showing a problematic trend are fine by me, but using an example where you’re supposed to feel bad about the possible loss of a manipulative, violent, and both physically and psychologically abusive figure? not so much.
This comic is delightful. This, to date, is my favorite Dumbing of Age strip. Thank you David Willis for a whimsically well rounded look at modern gender roles. It’s nice to acknowledge the dishonesty of the “if a then b” logic of modern sociopolitical discourse. I like that Joe honestly does represent a humanly (not male) chauvinistic apathy toward deeper meaning and instead has the values of a voluptuary, that Walky doesn’t just immediately jump to “now we are in love”, and that Joyce and Dorothy are single purposed while still both being entirely right though opposites. That Walky and Dorothy’s interaction aren’t rushed and instead represent a more true to life amorous interaction is what keeps me reading. Not that one piece specifically, but what it means overall: paced story telling that doesn’t move illogically and has depth and intelligence.
Even more so for the fact that you used the Muppets to illustrate bias of gender roles in cinema while still loving the film. Good man.
Also, nice punch line.
Also also, watch Inside Job. Fantastic film.
I agree with all of this. Including about Inside Job, though I can’t see what it has to do with any of this.
No, wait. I’m thinking of Inside Man. Still don’t get it.
I suppose the prof is probably right, but it’s hard to be sure because I don’t think I like to read books or watch movies like that, so my sample is skewed. Discuss.
Thinking about it, isnt it just generally true that a job has to be given up for love in cinema regardless of sex?
Surely theres lots of films about uptight/businessmen given it up for love. Normally involving moving away from the city too etc.
Maybe this is due to the fact working women assume their situation is oh-so-much-better than women who give it up to be mothers, and that’s thrown in so many women’s faces that seeing one, even a fake one, see the light is a thrilling moment of catharsis. There’s a reason there was originally a scene in the Incredibles where Helen chews out a neighbor for berating her being a stay-at-home mom.
The difficulty with this line of thinking is that the “stay-at-home mom” job role hurt the working women first.
I watched that deleted scene and I enjoyed it and I felt badly for Helen; it’s an awkward position, when everyone you talk to at parties seems to think that “homemaker” is a worthless job.
But the backlash, the instinctive repulsion from especially if not mainly women, is there for a reason: homemaker used to be our only option as women, and to see women now returning to that career willingly feels like a betrayal of everything we worked for. It would be like if a woman said, “I could vote, sure, but my husband is so much more informed on the issues that I would just be wasting my time. I just let him vote for me.”
If you look at that sentence completely dispassionately, there’s nothing wrong with it; someone knows they aren’t informed on the issues and they’re sitting out the vote, yay! But it’s really, really hard to separate that from the knowledge that women struggled really hard to earn the right to vote, and now here’s a woman throwing it carelessly away and letting her man vote for her instead of taking advantage of the opportunity afforded to her only by the blood, sweat, and tears of her forebearers.
Also, as Mike pointed out so aptly a few strips back, men who think a woman’s place is in the kitchen are dangerous and toxic on a level that a snotty businesswoman at a barbecue can never hope to match. So when Joyce makes the very common statement that feminists hate housewives, she’s ignoring the fact that that “hate” just can’t compare to the damage done by the hatred of a chauvinist.
And all of this is without even pointing out the other threats to women: the urban myth of the biological clock, which I at least was told about as young as twelve, where we’re told that no matter how much we might “think” we want to be powerful and successful in the workplace, eventually our hormones will take over our brains and literally force us to want to have babies. Oh, and if we’ve “waited too long”, as in until we’re as — GASP — shockingly old as 35, then we probably won’t be able to have babies at all. We will be too late and have to forever live with the consequences of our hubris or endure ridiculous trials and tribulations through the adoption system, artificial insemination, etc.
The point of my last paragraph is that this makes at least two separate fronts on which working women feel they have been attacked by stay-at-home moms.
So it’s not a one-sided struggle with working women picking on homemakers, even if homemakers like Joyce aren’t fully aware of the attacks their side is launching.
I take issue with the fact that there even are sides. That a woman can’t freely choose without other women judging. Women, in general, expend too much time and energy tearing each other down when we should be supporting each other.
The biological clock is not a myth. It’s biology. Sure, there is no rule that says you can’t conceive after 35. But every year after 35, the risks of birth defects and unsustainable gestation increase almost exponentially.
It occurs to me that, given what Walky and Dorothy both say they want, things might actually work out well for them if they end up keeping this thing going. I mean, if Dorothy wants to focus on her schoolwork and eventual career, and if Walky just wants to occasionally hang out and do some smooching, without asking for too much of her time or anything, they might actually be able to make it work. I mean, if Dorothy is casual about romantic things because she’s busy with other stuff, and Walky is casual about things because…he’s Walky, then neither of them wants a super-high level of commitment (unlike Danny) and things could turn out okay. I think the only things that would actually kill this are either Dorothy thinking she should never take ANY time to relax from her work at all (which is quite possibly what she would think, but bullshit), or Dorothy being ashamed of Walky (which I think is also quite possible, but silly and unfair, because he is adorable like a puppy covered in McNuggets).
“Often in fiction if a female character expresses strong interest in non-romantic pursuits, the story serves to ‘correct’ her path.”
Yeah I’ve noticed that too. Every single time. They have to portray the woman as having some sort of emotional issue and make her as cold and distant as possible until the right penis comes along and she finally opens up (hiyooo) and then all is right with the world.
I agree that Hollywood isn’t getting things right.
But I think the problem isn’t that they depict singles as unsatisfied or discontent. I think the problem is that they depict coupledom as a state of satisfaction and contentment. We tend to think, why can’t a person have it all? The truth is that you can’t have it all, and that contentment is a temporary condition. Once the girl gets the guy, eventually one of them will want a baby or two. Then they will eventually want to get the babies out and successful in the world, and some peace as a couple. Along the way they will want other things. Houses. Vacations. Freedom from debt.
Hollywood isn’t to blame for depicting singles as being dissatisfied with their status quo. It’s to blame for leading millions of viewers to consider the idea that supreme contentment can be achieved through a relationship or a career.
I have both and they are going well at the moment. And I still yearn for contentment. These days I find it when I manage to have some alone time with the HBO shows I’ve recorded on my dvr.
Disney’s The Princess and the Frog:
She didn’t give up her dream of her restaurant when she realized she was in love with Naveen, she just found a way to build her dream around him and including him in the final product.
Sad part is despite the princess and the frog was a good movie I doubt disney will ever do any thing like it for a long time beacuse it wasnt a mega hit it made money no question doubt but thats disney.
That movie had other problems though, not so much from a feminist perspective, but from a class-relations one. Not only couldn’t I dig her being friends with the rich white girl (seriously, what a dumb plot point) but on top of that, they never even encroached upon the idea, if they were such good friends, of her lending the protagonist money with reasonable terms. Disney’s revisionism of its own bullshit mythology is always so half-assed.
I hate to come off as a Disney apologist, ( i am going to really bad job at it because ya know Disney is evil and be apologist for them is like be an apologist for Joe McCarthy (i am not apologist for Joe McCarthy))
Pretty much all Disney movies have problems some more then others, yes this movie had problems with the class issue the fact that Naveen, dreams only came true when she married the prince, and ya know but it was at least an attempt at trying some different as much as Disney can do different i suppose. But the animation was good, and story was okay, and wasn’t Cinderella, so… ya know could have been worse. Okay i am making excuses *covers face*
please don’t hurt me.
by the by my favorite Disney movies are The Emperors New Groove and Lilo and Stitch.
Loading ...
It can’t be!
I know! The back of Roz’s head! Incredible!
Joe(and most of the web enabled campus) have become quite familiar with the back of her head.
*slow claps*
Well played, well played indeed.
To me it kind of looks like the back of Faz’s head.
That’s possible, but it definitely doesn’t look like Roz’s to me.
Well… *shifts awkwardly*
my brain deleted the f there
…yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that does nothing to decrease the awkwardness
Whoah, hello new comic :O
Context is very important.
Aw. *Hugs Walky*
I KNOW! Poor guy!
Then again… that’s the nature of most/all relationships!
Walky looks so ashamed.
He does, yes, but he is at least openly indicating that his whole “fear the cooties” phase is ending; he is making it apparent that Dorothy can influence his feelings (to the point of shame, in this case, which might be new to him), and the “smooch” comment would be a dead giveaway even to those who do not know about the night before (basically the rest of the class, minus Mike of course).
He is growing-up, albeit slowly.
Life needs a commentary track.
Poor Leslie is out of the loop.
she should just assume that everyone is smooching everyone.
I think this’d be a very different, albeit slightly more interesting, comic in that case
Well, except for Mike. Mike only smooches moms for nickels.
Mike smooches whoever you don’t want him to smooch
With his penis
That leads to the launching of a whole fleet of ‘ships’.
someone should just make a smooch chart for everyone who’s kissed so we can see people who have indirectly kissed each other. Like since walky kissed dorothy he has also kissed danny and by an extension billy and everyone she’s kissed. 😛
Walky sure has indirectly kissed a whole fleet of high school football players.
…Damn Willis, I am simultaneously laughing and fighting back the urge to chain that comment into a dirty joke.
A sort of chain…with legs? A sort of centipede, if you will?
Technically, Walky has not kissed Billie, since she only kissed Danny after Dorothy broke-up with him.
I nominate Robin.
I recommend she create a Congressional committee to study the kissing habits of college students at State U. (have we gotten a name for this college yet?)
Yeah, it’s set at Indiana University. Hence the IU logos that regularly show up on clothing and background items.
I’d nom-and-ate Robin!
Mike nom-and-ate your mom for a nickel
I guess I was asking for that one huh? =/
Mike DIDN’T ask for that one. He took it.
Aww snap! Plasma are you gonna start making your posts intro with
*Bzzzzrrrtt* *Rumble Rumble*
“Powerful Moter”
Followed by a laugh that would make Kefka double take?
*Does a noblewoman’s laugh* What makes you think I would do something like that? 😛
Kefka from Final Fantasy 6?
This made me giggle. I love it when people share, and make references to, my fandoms 😀
Maybe she needs to read the archive.
Best teacher, worst info gatherer
No woman should have to give up her career for family, but it’s okay if she chooses to do so because she wants to.
i agree, and find myself pondering the variations on that sentence. hell, it’s practically essay fodder:
— “No woman should have to give up her career for family, but it’s okay if she chooses to do so because she wants to.”
— “No woman should have to give up her family for her career, but it’s okay if she chooses to do so because she wants to.”
— “No man should have to give up his career for family, but it’s okay if he chooses to do so because he wants to.”
— “No man should have to give up his family for his career, but it’s okay if he chooses to do so because he wants to.”
in the interest of brevity though i’ll just say that culturally enforced life priorities can go eat a bag of dicks in a general sense. (i didn’t have any specific dicks in mind, no.)
Tough if the family is already existent, “giving it up” could be a little more complicated; after all, very close people are involved.
I’m eagerly waiting to see if, since she’s already brought up the topic of women being forced into home roles, she approaches the companion topic of men being forced into provider roles.
Or for that matter how temporally displaced these roles are in a society where generally a dual income is needed to raise a family anyway.
It has the potential to be a very interesting lecture. I’d like to see Joyce’s reaction when she realizes exactly what kind of income and job security she’d need in a husband for being a stay at home mom to be a feasible option.
“i’ll just say that culturally enforced life priorities can go eat a bag of dicks in a general sense.”
Now there’s a statement I can get behind.
I think that would make a great, if somewhat confusing to bystanders, bumpersticker, would need a big vehicle, however.
If you are looking for sticker material, you can axe both “I’ll just say” and “in a general sense”.
That would make a two-lines sticker. Definitely something you have to stop to read, but not cumberstone as far as bumpers go.
It would be nice if it were more of a choice. For example, if daycare were less insanely expensive, or more subsidized, or otherwise less of a burden. I knew a well-paid scientist who left her job because it was cheaper to take care of her new child than to keep her job and pay for daycare. (She was a biologist who was a fundie and denied evolution, so no great loss, but still.)
No great loss to science, but certainly a great loss to her, personally. I know what you mean.
My sister-in-law used to work at a daycare, and they cut back her hours to less than 20 a week so she no longer qualified for free child care. Suddenly it was more affordable for her not to work. I guess the upside is I can see my nephew a little bit more often, but it was a pretty big blow to their wallets.
And finally, Walky gives his honest opinion. I find it no less valid than the viewpoints expressed by either Joyce or Dorothy.
It’s all about personal choice.
I really like Walky’s opinion. Very to the point.
Personal choice and smoochin’.
Smoochin’ is one of the best things a person can choose!
Way to fight the stereotype Dorothy, with your … PINK shirt! *runs away
It looks more like Amaranth to me.
when I read that the first thing I thought was Amaranth metrion zinthos.
For the second time on the same comic, I once again must give you a slow clap. Well played, well played (again).
… So what if her shirt is pink? There’s nothing wrong with girl’s liking pink; it’s when pink is the only option for girls that there is a problem.
Besides, pink can be quite manly, especially if it is Hot Pink.
So it’s Renge today. Nice.
It has been a few years since I watched Ouran and besides Haruhi the reverse trap, I found Renge very genge savvy and amusing.
I am a ouran fan. Saw all the characters here in town at evilcon a few weeks ago
I cosplayed as Nekozawa a few weeks ago at Kawaii Kon.
That’s a character I’d’ve liked to have seen lol. I was hHeero Yuy from Gundam Wing. No one knew I was cosplaying lol.
My favorite part of the con was Eric vale during a spur of the moment 18+ panel where he told Vic manyana stories
Heero Yuy? Isn’t that a male character that often gets cosplayed by females?
If so I didn’t know it. He’s a dick.
…Genki?
I heard once that blue used to be the feminine colour because the Virgin Mary was often depicted wearing blue, and pink used to be the masculine colour because it’s considered a shade of red, which represents blood and is therefore manly. But I can’t remember where I heard it or why the colours switched genders.
Blame the Commi’s
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html
That was actually really interesting! Thanks!
Yes! I read that article a few weeks ago, quite interesting!
(though I honestly don’t remember most of it. Great information retention, me.)
Pink looks good with blonde.
That movie had other problems though, not so much from a feminist perspective, but from a class-relations one. Not only couldn’t I dig her being friends with the rich white girl (seriously, what a dumb plot point) but on top of that, they never even encroached upon the idea, if they were such good friends, of her lending the protagonist money with reasonable terms. Disney’s revisionism of its own bullshit mythology is always so half-assed.
doh!… wrong thread
I agree with what Leslie’s saying and honestly, I find it’s a distracting part of movies nowadays and another reason why people can never be more original because they have to follow the same guidelines. I feel like Joyce, Dorothy and Walky all have good points and that it can be a person to person issue. Joyce being the more monogomous person, Dorothy being more work focused, and walky simply wanting to have fun and get the most out of life.
At the end of the day, everyone just wants to be happy. And yet, happiness can be found in the least expected ways, and often the best kinds of happiness are found unexpectedly. Not always, and not for everyone, but often enough.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting a career over settling down and perhaps if she had put that in the form of an ultimatum or just broke up with Danny in high school there wouldn’t be that drama.
Way to admit to smooching around there, Walky.
you figured it out!? But he was so tactical about it
By “admit” you of course mean “boast of your manly conquest” right?
Manly? Walky?
You’d think she’d get some context after Walky. Geez I don’t think he knows how to have an implied subtext.
Joyce and Dorothy’s responses seem pretty standard to me…
Walky’s… I feel like I’m also missing some important context somehow.
Dosn’t appear that anyone actually answered her question. They did all give good opinions, but those arn’t exactly answers. Leslie, you have a class of teenagers-count yourself lucky if you are ‘ever’ in the loop.
In my college experience the professor isn’t nesessarily looking for an answer. I found that they were usually looking for an “intelligent sounding” response to their class inquery to see if anyone is listening.
They want you to engage with the topic at hand. If that means their particular question gets left by the wayside, then so be it.
I always found I could coast through most in-class discussions, and look fairly knowledgeable, using a technique that basically amounted to the cold reading that “psychics” use to amaze you with information about yourself. If I hadn’t read the material, I’d make a really general statement that could apply to anything, then let everyone else tell me what I needed to know to make brilliant-sounding statements about books I hadn’t opened.
“Hi, I’m Walky and I like candlelight McNuggets and long smooches on the beach…”
“Hi, I’m Mike and I like doing your mom for a nickel and long punches on your face.
“Hi, I’m Joe and I like figure 8 bodies and long headlines on the beach.”
“Hi, I’m Sal and I am into defenestration.”
Something that turns me off of so many rom-coms is that fact that the heroine starts off as a successful no-nonsense business woman, but we quickly learn that the moral of the story is that it’s never enough. … Except that for many women, it IS enough. Not every woman, but many.
To be fair, rom-coms tend to give men the same treatment. Their world isn’t complete without the heroine either. People just like to be in love.
I swear, dude, you are no longer allowed to respond to every female who posts any indication that she’s dissatisfied with anything with “but white straight dudes have it just as bad too!” Even if it were true, it’s a weaselly, shitty thing to do. It’s not how amicable conversation works. I will not have the consequences of your posts on My Other Webcomic occur here as well.
So stop.
Seriously. It’s fucking obnoxious. Cut it out.
You will have no response to this post. No “Sorry, won’t do it again,” or “Okay, but, to be fair…” Just don’t do it. No more. Quietly move on, and find other ways in which to comment.
The Willis has decreed.
Man, I’m so glad you responded to this. I kept trying to figure out a non jerky way to respond to “gender studies” should include man’s problems. Ridiculous. APPLAUSE for calling him out.
I’m not going to say men have it as bad as women on TV because that’d just be absurd. What I think *is* the case is that men are put into boxes as well. Dumb dads/leads (every Matt Groening and Seth McFarlane show), filanderers who don’t care about anything (Two and a Half Men, Barney from HIMYM), etc.
There’s also a lot of pressure from society for a man to work to support his family, maybe not as much there is for a woman to stop working and raise that family, but it’s not insignificant either. Can anybody name a sitcom with a high-powered executive Mom and a poet stay-at-home Dad?
Also, “gender studies” *should* study men, too. Otherwise they should change it back to “women’s studies.”
In fairness, in concept I can understand, as anyone dealing with the question of a male being called “girly” will tell you there are mens problems on the subject, but it’s a bit of a matter of degrees and context.
The truth is that in a patriarchy “men’s problems” are so different from women’s, and largely so much lesser, as to make them understandably ignored. One of the bigger weaknesses in this approach is that it does cause a bit of ignorance as to the degree to which women are actually subconciously looked down upon by the system. For instance battered husbands and boyfriends are less likely to report and be believed due to the fact that that’s seen as a “women’s problem” as well as the fact that they are seen as “less masculine” for being unable to handle it when a woman is violent towards them. Similar with the issue of child molestation. An adult male molests a girl (or boy) he’s a monster, but you see way too many responses to a middle school boy being molested that he’s “lucky” or that “he’s going to have to learn you’ve got to work for it from now on” or similar.
Mind you, as I said, these issues again A: can pretty easily be seen as having their roots in anti-woman sentiment, and B: are really not large concerns in the face of the issues women by large, as well as LGBTQPA+ people have to deal with.
Oh, and C: They should never be used to argue down the importance of women’s issues. So yea, johannohwitzer is full of crap and deserved the telling off. Thanks David. I may rag on about the Piggy-Kermit thing, but we’re at least coming from similar places mentally.
And Aegon01: I do agree, if it’s only dealing with the woman specific sections, “women’s studies” is a better name for the class, although you get a lot of right wingers attacking programs named that as “sexist”. Mind you, gender studies also needs to deal with issues like LGBT+ that could be said to provide an additional dimension to gender studies as commonly thought of.
Thank you because I would’ve been able to sit there for that long writing all that.
Because I myself see and feel some of the social pressures that have to be lived up to because of me being a man, but damn the shit that the non-danglers have to withstand with on top of a myriad of menstrual problems that you have to be extremely covert about.
Mostly what I’ve seen if the effects of our media on womens self-confidence.
Both you and Turkishproverb are on the right path with this. When ic comes down to it, everyone has stereotypes placed on them by society in both a larger cultural sense and a smaller community sense. And they suck, especially when you don’t fit that mold. However, as a woman I can tell you that it’s personally infuriating when I try to bring up these very real and important issues only to be dismissed as overreacting or overemotional or that men have problems too so that balances everything out. I understand that being a good man in this culture isn’t easy, but that doesn’t make our lives as women any easier. … OK, that was my rant for the evening.
Oh! A! You said A! In LGBTQPA+! I didn’t even know I was part of a version of that acronym until you posted that!
Anyway, our main problem seems to be people thinking we don’t exist (thank you so so very much, House!) which in my opinion isn’t too bad. 🙂
“Who’s the Boss”
Actually check out the cartoon series “Johnny Test”
They do just that, the mom is a buiness exec and the dad is a “Mr.Mom” cooking and cleaning general housekeeping.
I don’t remember if he has any other major interest other than cooking and possibly becoming some sort of chef, but thats not the focus of the show.
I think that is one of the minute few things Johnny Test is worthy of praise for. Outside of that it’s a lazily written and animated show.
Men have lots of bias’s against them. Men are less caring, less good with children. Men are more warmongering etc.
Did you see that film poster with the heart over the woman in the right place, but on the man it was over the penis?
Isnt that highly offensive ?
The critical difference is the negative male sterotypes make them unsuitable for lower paid jobs. Ie. A man might be bias against if trying to get a job in, say, childcare.
A woman, however, might be biased against when picking a rockscientist, which would be a vastly higher paid job.
This is why male bias tends to be less damaging, although it really shouldn’t be ignored in any studies class as it can still be a horrible thing.
Thats interesting.
One thing though, it feels easier, almost fun, to fall into these stereotypes in comparison to women’s.
Us men’s stereotypes make it somewhat more acceptable to be goofy and want to avoid responsibility. Cause thats honestly what many people want to do on some level cause thats why we get drunk, to avoid our problems, to become stupider and drop our restraints.
So even though men do have restrictions, I’d say I rather have to be like James Bond or the Old Spice Guy rather than say feel bad about my body cause I’m not the same build as a photo-shopped supermodel.
A female friend of mine said she perceived that it was considered more acceptable for a young woman to drift along without settling into one career path than a young man, presumably because there was still some assumption she’d probably get married and become a housewife anyway. I hadn’t considered this before.
True, but then, they do try getting us to spray Axe all over ourselves 😛
I’m pretty sure (or I hope) “Men’s issues are insignificant” is not what Willis had in mind when he wrote that so much as “Men’s issues should not be used as an interruption or justification for women’s issues”.
It saddens me that you twisted it that way, and more so by the thought that you actually believe that.
Maybe I missed this guys long history of replying with “but white straight dudes have it just as bad too!” but that seems really harsh considering this seems to be the only comment he’s made in this way in the last few days. Yes, I checked.
He made some other comments that aren’t here anymore.
Avatar combo breaker!
Anyways, straight guys have it as hard as gays? (Pun somewhat intended) Bullshit!
I really want to make an anal sex joke, but I can’t be clever enough for it to not be in bad taste.
Don’t get David angry. You won’t like him when he’s angry.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/lightsabermario/Davidsmad.png
David this post of yours has made me lose a majority of respect for you. I understand that DoA is your brainchild and that you put a lot of time and effort into putting these strips out everyday. I don’t usually agree with the way you portray some of your characters, but they are yours and I respect that. Still to see you lash out at people who voice a contrary opinion is just sad and pathetic. I would understand if you just banned johannhowitzer, but instead you attack him. It is easy to see that there is some sort of history with this guy, but that doesn’t excuse your behavior. I expected more from you Mr. Willis. I am sorry you weren’t as strong as I thought you were.
I don’t usually post because my comments would just start flame wars that are really unnecessary, but I felt that I needed to say something here.
You’re just seeing the tail end of something here, Sharogen. This guy is always derailing points of feminist critical inquiry in order to push an agenda that somehow frames straight men as as equal, or greater victims in the current world order. Don’t get bent out of shape just because he’s being dealt with. Beside’s this is David’s house here. His rules.
Okay, this is a clear case of issue derailment. This is a common problem when the focus is supposed to be on women’s issues to bring up mens issues, especially when it is an attempt at justification. Both genders have issues, and the existence of similar issues for the opposite gender do not solve the problems for the issues or make either of them “okay” so shame on you johann. BUT also, shame on you David for belittling the issues of men instead of just pointing out the above clearly, thus allowing Samuel to do the same and further irritate and indirectly derail the subject further.
I find the “who’s it worse for, men or women?” discussion about RomComs to be a little shortsighted. The issue is not whether women or men are generally portrayed one way or another, but rather the fact that ANYONE – man, woman or transgender; straight or gay – are portrayed as “broken” for veering off the path to a traditional nuclear family.
I like to use “Failure to Launch” as an example of a typical offender that cuts both ways:
Matthew McConaughey’s character is a successful boat salesman with an unconventional living situation: he lives at home with his parents and refuses to pursue a family of his own after the tragic death of his fiance. He is pressured throughout the film to give up his unconventional lifestyle in exchange for a longterm romance in a traditional living situation with SJP.
Sarah Jessica Parker’s character is equally successful, but her job is unconventional: she provides therapeutic, simulated relationships in exchange for money. She is pressured to give up her job in exchange for an exclusive, traditional long-term relationship with McConaughey.
Now you could easily argue that SJP is being forced to give up a career while McConaughey is simply being forced to cope with his traumatic experience, but the underlying moral is that BOTH had to give up whatever unconventional traits defined them in order to fit into societal norms, which are presented as an ultimate goal.
Anyway, I guess what I’m trying to say is that the argument of who is more downtrodden on the battlefield of romantic comedies is a victor-less battle. We can all agree that stories that idealize a hetero-normative nuclear family over all other lifestyles are damaging to everyone, regardless of sex or gender.
This. And if I may springboard, with an apology, and David if you will be unreasonably patient with me in my attempt to reconcile…
My views are still forming, and as such I realize I come across as harse, but this is not my wish and it has happened, and I am profoundly sorry to have offended so many people and sorry Willis for dragging my ego in here as I try to figure things out.
I do not see male problems as “equal” to female problems, but I do see them as intertwined and I see the male side of the equation flying under the radar for the most part, and I see that as dangerous for both men and women. We are in the same boat, and yes I believe women’s problems deserve every iota of attention they get, and I applaud anyone who stands up for young women. In attempting to divert part of the attention to male problems I have probably only made the situation worse by doing it in such a callous, ill-worded, and ill-timed fashion. I beg your forgiveness and hope this harm may be reversed.
Congratulations. You have done every single thing I specifically told you not to do.
Begging your pardon, sir, but I will not be told not to ask forgiveness when I am wrong.
What good is an apology if you ignore the specific requests of the person you’re apologizing to? Do you have no respect for me? Because that’s what you’ve demonstrated. And as such, I do not accept your apology, because without respect, there is no apology.
But at least you got to say a few more sentences about your thoughts on the subject, right? Because that was what was most important, not the apology.
(Which, by the way, is exactly what I wanted to prevent by asking you to not respond and to instead change your behavior in the future.)
I will assume a real apology has taken place if you do not respond to this. I mean it. Not a word. Not even an “Okay.”
I almost find that worse character development than a disney princess to be honest…
This is part of why I like Stargate SG1 so much. Carter develops so well. Of course people like to be in love, but they managed to steer clear of the possible easy cliche’s and eventually found her a love interest that she was equal (and in many ways superior) to, and never gave up her job (or significant plot) to be with. In fact, where I’m at right now (mid Season 8), he’s moving closer to her =P
Boom for the under-appreciated world of adventure television!
The worst part about most Rom-coms is anyone who is successful, male or female, is insufferable to everyone around them because they haven’t found the person to change them into a tolerable human being.
No one is ever successful and content and single. On top of that, if they do attempt to date it is made to be a bigger deal then all of the success they have achieved through their entire life.
It says, you can’t be single and content, it must be that you just don’t know what you are missing and are afraid because you don’t know how to go out on a date. These same people that know how to dress themselves for the business lunches and dinners they have been going to for a decade, can’t dress themselves and get nervous to the point of stupidity.
But of course they will never know what real life is until they give up everything they spent years and money to achieve.
Preach it.
That convention probably originated in trying to make non-successful audience members feel better- the old “s/he may be rich, but are they happy?” cliche.
It’s not a college lit class unless some painfully earnest girl is blaming “society” for everything.
I blame society for your comment.
I blame dinkleberg.
I blame rap music, ACDC, and Marilyn Manson. Oh, and Elvis’ hips too.
I don’t blame Elvis’ hips because hips don’t lie
No, Shakira’s hips don’t lie … Elvis’ hips were pathological liars.
I blame Elvis’s death for the Elvis/Shakira collaboration which will never happen now.
My husband doesn’t read this strip, but I showed him this one and his response was to shout out “The White Zone is for loading and unloading only!” And then said that should’ve been the strip title.
I don’t entirely disagree…
Poor Leslie. This is what happens when you only manage to read three DoA strips every other month.
No, the red zone is for immediate loading and unloading… not the white zone.
Listen, don’t start up with your white zone shit again!
There’s just no stopping in a white zone.
Why pretend, we both know perfectly well what this is about.
It’s times like these that knowing the context gives me a slightly uncomfortable chuckle.
Just because something’s enough, doesn’t mean that its best. Work is good, but in order to be truly complete we need something else as well.
indeed you are leslie…..indeed you are
God I love Prof. Bean. All fives on her review.
They all seem so earnest. It must be nice to know what you want out of your life…
It must be nice to still think that what you want out of your life has anything to do with what you’re gonna get.
methinks the professor should read this comic…
“Hi, I’m Billie. I like full kegs of beer and long pulls off of bottles of high-proof liquor.”
And now the general side of this trope. Much easier to agree with. Now we’re not dealing with a specific example that involves miss Piggy an…unsuitible example to say the least.
That’s the problem with discussing a lot of this stuff.
Specifically, is there anything wrong with X example? No, that was a perfectly valid thing for Y to do. They issue comes when all the Ys in all the Xs do the same thing.
It’s more that there’s a bigger problem in the piggy-kermit relationship than the woman giving up her career for a man. Namely, the abusive partner using “giving up her career” to get the other member of the relationship who had removed himself from it back, and gain additional power in an already unbalanced relationship in which he feels guilty for getting the fuck out while he could.
Demographic comparisons and examples showing a problematic trend are fine by me, but using an example where you’re supposed to feel bad about the possible loss of a manipulative, violent, and both physically and psychologically abusive figure? not so much.
Walky, could you BE any cuter right now? You’re like a puppy.
covered in mcnuggets. which is the cutest kind of puppy.
and the most delicious.
Doesn’t seem terribly sanitary, though.
Don’t double-dip da’ doggie.
LOL love it
This comic is delightful. This, to date, is my favorite Dumbing of Age strip. Thank you David Willis for a whimsically well rounded look at modern gender roles. It’s nice to acknowledge the dishonesty of the “if a then b” logic of modern sociopolitical discourse. I like that Joe honestly does represent a humanly (not male) chauvinistic apathy toward deeper meaning and instead has the values of a voluptuary, that Walky doesn’t just immediately jump to “now we are in love”, and that Joyce and Dorothy are single purposed while still both being entirely right though opposites. That Walky and Dorothy’s interaction aren’t rushed and instead represent a more true to life amorous interaction is what keeps me reading. Not that one piece specifically, but what it means overall: paced story telling that doesn’t move illogically and has depth and intelligence.
Even more so for the fact that you used the Muppets to illustrate bias of gender roles in cinema while still loving the film. Good man.
Also, nice punch line.
Also also, watch Inside Job. Fantastic film.
I agree with all of this. Including about Inside Job, though I can’t see what it has to do with any of this.
No, wait. I’m thinking of Inside Man. Still don’t get it.
Welcome to being an adult amongst teenagers Leslie.
I suppose the prof is probably right, but it’s hard to be sure because I don’t think I like to read books or watch movies like that, so my sample is skewed. Discuss.
Like, you know, the fact that Kermit didn’t ask anything of Piggy he didn’t ask of any of his other, now-equally-successful ex-costars.
I kid, naturally, but I still feel The Muppets is a poor example.
I am pretty sure Gonzo was the only one to have as much success as Miss Piggy after the muppet split up. And possibly Scooter.
Bunsen and Beaker were working on the LHC, and Sam the Eagle had his own news-pundit style show.
Thinking about it, isnt it just generally true that a job has to be given up for love in cinema regardless of sex?
Surely theres lots of films about uptight/businessmen given it up for love. Normally involving moving away from the city too etc.
True, it creates drama in the story.
Go go Joyce-Walky-Dorothy love triangle!!!
Sooner or later, Dorothy’s going to have to choose between them.
Maybe this is due to the fact working women assume their situation is oh-so-much-better than women who give it up to be mothers, and that’s thrown in so many women’s faces that seeing one, even a fake one, see the light is a thrilling moment of catharsis. There’s a reason there was originally a scene in the Incredibles where Helen chews out a neighbor for berating her being a stay-at-home mom.
The difficulty with this line of thinking is that the “stay-at-home mom” job role hurt the working women first.
I watched that deleted scene and I enjoyed it and I felt badly for Helen; it’s an awkward position, when everyone you talk to at parties seems to think that “homemaker” is a worthless job.
But the backlash, the instinctive repulsion from especially if not mainly women, is there for a reason: homemaker used to be our only option as women, and to see women now returning to that career willingly feels like a betrayal of everything we worked for. It would be like if a woman said, “I could vote, sure, but my husband is so much more informed on the issues that I would just be wasting my time. I just let him vote for me.”
If you look at that sentence completely dispassionately, there’s nothing wrong with it; someone knows they aren’t informed on the issues and they’re sitting out the vote, yay! But it’s really, really hard to separate that from the knowledge that women struggled really hard to earn the right to vote, and now here’s a woman throwing it carelessly away and letting her man vote for her instead of taking advantage of the opportunity afforded to her only by the blood, sweat, and tears of her forebearers.
Also, as Mike pointed out so aptly a few strips back, men who think a woman’s place is in the kitchen are dangerous and toxic on a level that a snotty businesswoman at a barbecue can never hope to match. So when Joyce makes the very common statement that feminists hate housewives, she’s ignoring the fact that that “hate” just can’t compare to the damage done by the hatred of a chauvinist.
And all of this is without even pointing out the other threats to women: the urban myth of the biological clock, which I at least was told about as young as twelve, where we’re told that no matter how much we might “think” we want to be powerful and successful in the workplace, eventually our hormones will take over our brains and literally force us to want to have babies. Oh, and if we’ve “waited too long”, as in until we’re as — GASP — shockingly old as 35, then we probably won’t be able to have babies at all. We will be too late and have to forever live with the consequences of our hubris or endure ridiculous trials and tribulations through the adoption system, artificial insemination, etc.
The point of my last paragraph is that this makes at least two separate fronts on which working women feel they have been attacked by stay-at-home moms.
So it’s not a one-sided struggle with working women picking on homemakers, even if homemakers like Joyce aren’t fully aware of the attacks their side is launching.
I take issue with the fact that there even are sides. That a woman can’t freely choose without other women judging. Women, in general, expend too much time and energy tearing each other down when we should be supporting each other.
That statement has some good deal of truth to it… At least according to “Mean Girls” [/joke]
The biological clock is not a myth. It’s biology. Sure, there is no rule that says you can’t conceive after 35. But every year after 35, the risks of birth defects and unsustainable gestation increase almost exponentially.
It occurs to me that, given what Walky and Dorothy both say they want, things might actually work out well for them if they end up keeping this thing going. I mean, if Dorothy wants to focus on her schoolwork and eventual career, and if Walky just wants to occasionally hang out and do some smooching, without asking for too much of her time or anything, they might actually be able to make it work. I mean, if Dorothy is casual about romantic things because she’s busy with other stuff, and Walky is casual about things because…he’s Walky, then neither of them wants a super-high level of commitment (unlike Danny) and things could turn out okay. I think the only things that would actually kill this are either Dorothy thinking she should never take ANY time to relax from her work at all (which is quite possibly what she would think, but bullshit), or Dorothy being ashamed of Walky (which I think is also quite possible, but silly and unfair, because he is adorable like a puppy covered in McNuggets).
“Often in fiction if a female character expresses strong interest in non-romantic pursuits, the story serves to ‘correct’ her path.”
Yeah I’ve noticed that too. Every single time. They have to portray the woman as having some sort of emotional issue and make her as cold and distant as possible until the right penis comes along and she finally opens up (hiyooo) and then all is right with the world.
Man, I hate Hollywood.
I agree that Hollywood isn’t getting things right.
But I think the problem isn’t that they depict singles as unsatisfied or discontent. I think the problem is that they depict coupledom as a state of satisfaction and contentment. We tend to think, why can’t a person have it all? The truth is that you can’t have it all, and that contentment is a temporary condition. Once the girl gets the guy, eventually one of them will want a baby or two. Then they will eventually want to get the babies out and successful in the world, and some peace as a couple. Along the way they will want other things. Houses. Vacations. Freedom from debt.
Hollywood isn’t to blame for depicting singles as being dissatisfied with their status quo. It’s to blame for leading millions of viewers to consider the idea that supreme contentment can be achieved through a relationship or a career.
I have both and they are going well at the moment. And I still yearn for contentment. These days I find it when I manage to have some alone time with the HBO shows I’ve recorded on my dvr.
Disney’s The Princess and the Frog:
She didn’t give up her dream of her restaurant when she realized she was in love with Naveen, she just found a way to build her dream around him and including him in the final product.
That is all.
*scampers off*
You have earned this cookie. -hands cookie over- Congrazzles!
…wow Sarah. Way to kill the mood.
Sad part is despite the princess and the frog was a good movie I doubt disney will ever do any thing like it for a long time beacuse it wasnt a mega hit it made money no question doubt but thats disney.
That movie had other problems though, not so much from a feminist perspective, but from a class-relations one. Not only couldn’t I dig her being friends with the rich white girl (seriously, what a dumb plot point) but on top of that, they never even encroached upon the idea, if they were such good friends, of her lending the protagonist money with reasonable terms. Disney’s revisionism of its own bullshit mythology is always so half-assed.
I hate to come off as a Disney apologist, ( i am going to really bad job at it because ya know Disney is evil and be apologist for them is like be an apologist for Joe McCarthy (i am not apologist for Joe McCarthy))
Pretty much all Disney movies have problems some more then others, yes this movie had problems with the class issue the fact that Naveen, dreams only came true when she married the prince, and ya know but it was at least an attempt at trying some different as much as Disney can do different i suppose. But the animation was good, and story was okay, and wasn’t Cinderella, so… ya know could have been worse. Okay i am making excuses *covers face*
please don’t hurt me.
by the by my favorite Disney movies are The Emperors New Groove and Lilo and Stitch.
To be fair, Hollywood WAS full of communists!
/Joseph McCarthy apologist
She literally was unable to build her dream without him.
Completely
unable
to build it.
I’d say the movie had some issues, yeah.
Is doA on hiatus?
Click the “next” button and find out.
I was actually thinking about this today when The Princess and the Frog came on. It was actually pretty great.
Yeah fictional women do tend to abandon the things they like for a relationship. Just like Leslie Bean! 😀