Obviously it’s not stated who’s speaking, but I’m now picturing a creepy old guy (the pastor, perhaps?) commenting on how beautiful this girl used to be…
Argh, that link makes me so angry… I don’t care what kind of tool you’re using, learning AND FOLLOWING basic safety protocols is IMPORTANT. And shit like this continually pops up as evidence that people are way too gorram casual with tools.
First bloody rule of firearms, never leave them loaded and always treat them as if they’re loaded anyway.
I had a long long conversation with someone who claimed to be a responsible gun owner but also always keeps his guns, plural, loaded, in an unlocked cabinet by his bed.
He was SO CONFUSED that I thought this was somehow unsafe. He insisted he sometimes locked the cabinet when “younger” family members came over, and scoffed at the idea that the NRA’s basic guidelines were good enough, but had NO RESPONSE when I pointed out that he and the NRA had all the same rules, he just had FEWER of them.
Some “responsible” gun owners are terrifying.
(My stepdad was an actual responsible gun owner, who kept his gun unloaded in a closet with multiple locks. I have no patience for people who do less.)
A loaded gun in a bedside table that is not locked. Is a self defense choice. With that mindset, having it completely unloaded, and locked away removes its effectiveness to it’s purpose. Scenario, home invader, possibly armed, obviously a danger. You woke up because something breaking when they entered.
Depending on your stance; You a gun owner with home defense in mind and have the firearm in the bedside table. Your now armed and ready to defend.
Your a “responsible” gun owner who keeps all their guns locked up and away from everyone. Unless that lockup is in your room and you can get into it quietly, and swiftly, as well as load it ect, your in a situation where your firearm to defend the house is out of reach, such as a gunsafe in the garage ect.
It really comes down to the reason you have the firearm. Seriously, I don’t think a such thing as a “responsible” anything exists, because one fuck up and that view changes, difference of opinion changes it as well. There’s no winning argument for any side of the debate.
That’s pretty much my take on “responsible gun owners”. They’re all responsible until they aren’t and get caught at it.
Beyond that, unless you have some particular reason to expect an attack – You’re living in a war zone, been threatened with murder, etc, etc, you really are putting yourself more at risk by keeping a gun in that “home defense” fashion.
Unforgivably so if there are young children in the house.
I agree. What irritates me most is that the US is dangerous enough that these types of personal policies are warranted. In so many other places, guns inspire fear, not courage. In the US though, everybody knows it makes people brave enough to do crazy, dangerous things, and having a gun thus becomes safer depending on the circumstance. And yet carrying a gun around day to day as a regular personal possession is spreading the idea that this should be a norm that continues.
They’ve locked themselves in a situation that looks a little bit like this: “Because there are so many dangerous fucks with so many guns out there, I’ve got to be a dangerous fuck with a gun to survive. Otherwise I’m an idiot. Trying to suppress gun usage is therefore stupid a bad thing.” So then everybody has that ideology, so the guns increase in number, and people wielding guns increases, and people who consider it regular increases.
It’s a nasty downward spiral to a dangerous world. It’s a shame that along with a right to self-defense comes the right to permanently maim someone or end their life. It’s a wonderful country but I am glad that I don’t live there. 🙁
Except it’s not really. It’s not that dangerous. That’s the image they spread, but it’s really nonsense.
Horrible shit happens, but it’s rare. Especially in the places where people are most likely to think they need guns for protection. And most of the real dangers aren’t the kind that you’re likely to protect yourself from with a gun.
Under most circumstances, guns really put you more at risk. Both from suicide & accidents, but also from doing something dumb that gets you killed if you ever do get robbed or something like that.
I’ve lived in the US my whole life, not all of it in the best areas and I’ve never once felt the need to be armed for my own protection. As someone said above the percentage of people who own guns has been dropping for decades, they’ve just been buying bigger and bigger arsenals.
I was shaping my comment to my expected audience. I wanted to not get barked at by pro-gun dudes barraging me with insults because it has happened. So, I decided to engineer my comment and pretend to see rationality in their views… Simply to avoid conflict. It looks more objective and less of an attack this way.
Oh, you actually thinks that the USA is a really dangerous place to live.
That’s almost cute.
No, really. I live in Brazil, and compared to some regions of my country, specially the northwest, the USA is a friggin’ utopia. While you get mass shootings, we have daily executions due to drug debt. While you have armed robbers, we have open warfare between natives and farmers in the Amazonic Rainforest. We have a fucking civil war in all but name between the police and drug dealers that has lasted a few decades up to now, and then a corrupt part of the police started a militia and is blackmailing people right now.
You don’t get to say that you live in such a really dangerous place that everyone should get a gun unless you have stumbled onto a dead corpse in the middle of the street and you first reaction was “oh, crap, not again. I wonder if this time it was the drug traffic or militia”. Because that is a thing.
And our worst isn’t even close to, say, Africa’s worst.
I try my best to assume rational thought from people because that’s how I process thoughts. In other words I’m trying to justify the US because of the sheer, massive amount of people who have defended the possession of firearms from that country.
Now, regardless of the fact that I was engineering my comment based on past experience, your view isn’t something I agree with. That view that if someone hasn’t faced the pain you have, then those people’s opinions are somehow of lesser value, their complaints carry less power… Empathy and understanding are the abilities of a person to comprehend things that happen to others. Don’t go around and complain about your more massive problems just because people are going around the internet talking about things they observe (which by the way is perfectly normal).
I’m not complaining about my more massive problem, I’m just stating that the notion of violence in the USA being so big of a problem as to warrant everyone needing a gun is ludicrous, to say the least. Not because you problems aren’t important enough, but violence in the USA is almost a non-issue compared to half of the countries in the world, and yet not one has so many guns.
That’s like saying that unless you live in a flood plain or in an earthquake zone, or tornado alley, you shouldn’t have home owner’s insurance. Or that you shouldn’t have health insurance because you’ve never been sick before.
The whole fallacy about a gun being more dangerous to you than to a bad guy is just that, a fallacy. It’s based on a poorly worded study that essentially misconstrued the source of shootings, and completely ignored any use of a gun that didn’t end in a shooting. Anecdotal, but I personally have 2 friends who have related stories to me of stopping (at the least) an assault by simply brandishing their weapon. I have another friend who was tied to a chair, and thankfully not harmed, by home intruders. He wasn’t armed, and he didn’t live in a war zone.
Bad things happen to good people. It’s up to us to make sure that we’re able to defend ourselves.
It’s also incumbent upon anyone owning a gun to be safe and responsible with it. The gun should be under your control at all times that it’s not locked away. You need to practice with it, and take the rules of shooting to heart. You need to respect the fact that you’re handing something that can potentially harm or kill someone else, and you need to make sure your kids know the safety rules of a gun. It’s critical that these conditions (and I’m certain there are a lot more that I skipped in the writing of this) are kept to faithfully.
The good news is, despite the media coverage, we’re actually at a low in terms of shooting. Liberalization of gun laws (and by that, I mean loosening) has resulted in us experiencing the lowest homicide rates since the 60s. And we’re still trending down. That doesn’t make the idiots who go on these rampages disappear, and it doesn’t make their actions all right. But it does put a little perspective on things.
And yeah, what thejeff said. Unless you’re in a warzone or otherwise have legitimate reason to fear for your life, statistically, you’re shooting yourself in the foot (lol) by keeping a gun that way.
It’s pretty easy to keep a full magazine next to a pistol or what have you in case of emergency. At very least don’t leave a round chambered – for that matter, the distinctive sound of a pump-action shotgun chambering a round is pretty discouraging to any intruder.
My great-grandfather kept a loaded pistol and pepper spray under his pillow. Then laid my five year old self down for a nap on that pillow. Luckily, it was the pepper spray I found and sprayed all over. The ER trip for that had a way better outcome than it could have. My mom was so pissed at him.
I remember helping a friend move. His gun save was being carried upstairs. I made an offhand joke about dropping the safe and one going off. He got dead serious, and commented that they were unloaded.
This guy is laid back and not serious about *anything.* Except guns. I really respect that.
Please don’t be a dick about my home state. It’s not any weirder than anywhere else, we just have different laws about local news stories being published nationally.
You mean Florida doesn’t necessarily have more crazies than anywhere else, but it is more willing to broadcast the crazies for everyone’s entertainment?
Thanks for explaining this! I have for years thought it was biz are that Florida always seemed to have more than its fair share of wackadoos trying to buy pot from cops in a patrol car and other hijinks. I’m glad to know it’s basically a sampling error!
wow people off screen way to go sinning in church, isn’t there thing about being a gossip in the bible? – this is rhetorical I know there is, I just want be a bit checky sometimes
From a Catholic POV, Jesus wasn’t “without sin”. He smashed up the tax collectors tables in a fit of rage. He had a moment of weakness where he asked God if he had to die. The only person who had no sin was Mary. I dunno if that’s true for the other parts of Christianity, though.
Wait, I’m catholic, too, but that’s the first time that I heard anything about Jesus being a sinner. I mean, sure, Mary is immaculate and queen of heavens and all that jazz, but she’s hardly better than God.
As a former Catholic seminarian, nope. Jesus was without sin. That means that getting angry or having doubts aren’t sins. (If Jesus did sin then you have the problem of God sinning.)
Most Protestant denominations don’t venerate Mary or consider her sinless. Evangelicals and Charismatics see her as a normal woman who just happened to get a one time “special mission from God” but who was otherwise un-miraculous. They also believe that after one Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth she had a few Joseph-assisted conceptions and non-virgin births.
The Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary herself was free from original sin, being kept in a sort of sin-free bubble by God so Jesus would have a clean place to come from. Protestants generally don’t believe in it.
Yeah, that is just…no. Official Catholic Dogma is that if Jesus had sinned even in the slightest way, his death wouldn’t have meant diddly squat because he wouldn’t be a perfect sacrifice.
Whatever priest taught you this is out of their got-dang mind.
All I know, as a guy who was raised outside of this whole religion business, is “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Followed buy a huge boulder being thrown over the crowd and Jesus shouting “MOM!” Though I think that second bit is blasphemy. Hilarious blasphemy.
Honestly, I’m not sure why more has not been made of the “let he who is without sin” part being an addon to the Bible. It honestly seems like a thing people want to ignore.
Tried Google and it looks like it’s mostly regarding slander/bearing false witness rather than holding stupid opinions. Ah, Titus 3 – “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.”
Taking a vocal stand, knowing that it will probably cut you off from your church, your community, your friends, and probably your wife and half your kids…is really freaking hard.
I mean, I want Hank to stand up. I’ll be disappointed if he doesn’t, but it’ll be an understanding disappointed.
I am NOT observant. I missed her standing there, saw her in the tags, and so assumed the off-panel voice was her. And I skipped making that sinkhole comment and comics where she actually did stuff.
No, it’s definitely Carol. It would be pointing at Mustache Guy if it were him talking. It makes sense for Carol to interject here, and she’s all the more repugnant for it.
But I’m pretty sure there’s no interjection occurring. It seems more like Hank is hearing either passers-by or standers-about talking. Casually eavesdropping, if you will.
The first panel shows some talking that’s not intelligible, probably indicating that Hank isn’t really listening to it because he’s involved in a conversation. This unintelligible-to-Hank (and us) talking is coming from the general direction to the bookstore, not Carol. In the next three panels, Hank is now aware of what the talkers in or near the bookstore are saying.
TL;DR: it’s not Carol saying the horrible things this time. Though she’d totally agree with them.
In panel 1, Carol is saying “I keep telling him he needs a gun”, but that’s not the text Cattleprod was talking about. In panels 2-5, some unseen characters are badmouthing Becky off-panel.
Hank is listening to a seperate conversation from the background. The mumbly word baloon in the first panel coming from very definitely not Carol is supposed to lead us into understanding that.
Wasn’t that the ONLY AMENDMENT to get repealed by state convention and popular vote?
I don’t think we’re getting the 2nd appealed that way.
I think the best strategy is a public information war to advertise the dangers of gun ownership to the family. Forget the legislative front for a bit (because it’s not going anywhere with this gridlock) and target the demand-side. Start hurting the gun companies financially, get fewer people wanting to own guns, and some of the political opposition to gun control will evaporate. Maybe enough to free up some legislation.
Fewer people are owning guns; the problem now is that the people who want to own guns own many guns and they don’t want the guvmint making it harder for them to get more guns.
I’m not against owning guns; I’ve certainly enjoyed my share of shooting fun. (On a range. With a trained instructor.) Also venison. I do think we need licenses – make sure everyone gets a license, which includes a background check, before they’re allowed to purchase a gun.
And with Peruta v. San Diego being decided recently, this is allowed under the Second Amendment, which does NOT guarantee the right for private citizens to own guns as individuals! I don’t know why this decision isn’t getting more attention!
I was going for a definition-eyeroll: “the second amendment is, by virtue of being an AMENDMENT (definition: a change or addition to a legal or statutory document) a change to the constitution”. Living in the American south most of the year, I hear a lot of people talking about the constitution, particularly that one bit of it, as if it were immutable and god-given, which… well, frankly, the reasoning I’ve heard most scares me. Best anti-gun argument I ever heard came from a gun seller who was trying to convince me (who was then slightly against but largely ambivalent about gun-related-everything, which is apparently an offensively anti-firearm stance in Alabama) why guns of any sort (he was particularly fond of automatic weapons) were inherently legal and necessary and people, especially good Christians, should have them.
“I hear a lot of people talking about the constitution, particularly that one bit of it, as if it were immutable and god-given, which… well, frankly, the reasoning I’ve heard most scares me.”
The thing is… the rest of the rights in the bill of rights are. No-one would disagree that freedom of speech or freedom of religion or protection from unlawful search and seizure, etc, is a basic human right and the constitution is simply doing the right thing by respecting it rather than being the source of it and that it would trivially go away if people decided to change it.
The pro-gun people simply believe that the right to gun ownership has a co-equal status to the rest… and they’re probably at least right about how the founders conceptualized it, since recognizing “god-given” inalienable rights rather than creating novel ones, was what the bill of rights was in general all about.
You can agree or disagree on whether the founders were right about it or not, but they did put it next to stuff like freedom of speech, trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishments, all of which are uncontroversially basic human rights. And the bill of rights is ten amendments, but it was written as a single document, and has the singular theme of recognizing things its authors regarded as inalienable rights. The inclusion of gun ownership alongside the others is not a mere coincidence. You can say they were wrong, but it’s disingenuous to say it’s not what they meant.
I disagree that gun ownership as it is framed now was regarded as an inalienable right by the founders. (Tbh, its more than a little ridiculous to act like “the founders” were a cohesive united groups with uniform ideas and goals…but such is the way we speak.) The Second Amendment could easily be argued to limit gun ownership as a fundamental right as intended to protect the ability to take part in a larger and more organized community force against government oppression re: a militia. Its not a very individualized amendment. Arguably the founders may have found personal protection to be a similarly worthy cause, but they framed the right to bear arms afforded by the Second Amendment in terms of a militia and personal protection wasn’t really the concern of the day. The parties who put the amendment forward were worried about the dangers of allowing the central gov. to maintain a standing military. To be glib, the idea that every Tom, Dick, and Harry must be able to individually run around with potentially military grade weaponry regardless of training or background, was the result of Supreme Court interpretation. An interpretation that both the Court and the country has been struggling with ever since.
The reasoning I’ve heard most is not “I want to hunt” or “I want to protect my family/property/business” or “I think guns are cool and want my collection to look impressive” but “if I want to put together a militia some day and march on Washington, no one has the right to stop me, especially not some lawmaker”. It’s people saying, in essence, “I want this killing tool to use on other humans”, and the people who say that are also often saying “these particular “types” of other humans aren’t supposed to exist”, and THAT is what scares me. When I hear an ardent speech in favor of automatic weapons from someone who says that, “peaceful coexistence [with other religions] is an attempt to subvert god’s will,” I don’t hear a patriot who values the law trying to uphold it, I hear a future tragedy in the making.
Context hasn’t really changed for the rest of the Bill of Rights. I mean, twenty dollars is a heck of a lot less now than it was then, but things like free speech, juries, warrants… the concepts haven’t changed too much, but weaponry is so much more absurdly advanced now than it was then -and the original document was written by a bunch of people fresh out of a war with the world’s most powerful navy that they had fought by use of a civilian militia. At that time, I can see firearms being essential. But… what need does anyone have for a fully automatic weapon in everyday civilian life? Someone with no military training or history?
How about, “If any American citizen can just up and buy guns under the Second Amendment, then that means that the PAGANS and HEATHENS and MUSLIMS can buy them, too! D: Also the abortionists and the gays.”
Quick! Make it harder to get guns! We all know the people who should have them either already have them or would be able to still get their hands on them, anyways.
Heh.
Mind you, it’s a complicated issue involving the place of the gun in American culture as well as the accessibility of them. A lot of Canadians have guns as well, but they’re still mainly a tool for rural areas, and you don’t see a lot of urbanites with them, any more than a lot of city dwellers have chain saws and ATVs, and for similar reasons (those being because they don’t really have a use for them unless they’re going hunting/fishing/camping and/or some other reason for heading into the bush).
Obama’s idea of not allowing people on the no-fly list to have guns is probably a good one, though, although I can’t see the NRA liking it one bit.
It would help a HELL of a lot, too, though, if more gun owners were responsible about how they were stored, handled, and used.
Actually, the Constitution *can* be changed. Hence the amendments. Prohibition was once part of the Constitution, before it got repealed. Congress just needs to pass the change, then a majority of States need to ratify it.
As for Carol, I was thinking she meant a shotgun or some other type of rifle that can shoot birdseed. (at least, I think that’s what the non-lethal stuff is they use) It’ll sting, and maybe convince the squirrels to go elsewhere.
It’s called birdshot, meaning, “shot for killing birds”. Contrast with buckshot (shot for killing bucks, ie deer), and bearshot, where you’re literally loaded for bear.
Birdshot USUALLY won’t kill a person, but it will do more then sting. It will embed dozens of tiny little metal pellets up to an inch into your flesh. AND it will kill a squirrel.
My cousin fires salt shot at stray cats and other pests getting into his property, and he says it *can* be fatal, depending on the distance and the chance of wounds getting infected. If it can kill cats, I wouldn’t bet on squirrels…
I think you’re giving Carol too much credit. She’s totally the type to buy into the notion that in order for Hank to ‘man up’, he’ll need to get a gun.
No the second amendment does not give us the right to ‘whatever’ weapons we want. Keep in mind that when it was written, the right to bear arms would’ve covered front loading muskets, mounted rifle sabers and knives. All of which killed people one at a time. (talking about self weapons here, not cannons).
Show me why an individual civilian needs a machine gun to kill a deer and maybe I could listen to NRA argument why civilians need them.
A 45 is more than enough for self defense. A shotgun or rifle(not a Kalnicknakoff or however it’s spelled).
In all honesty, if we are under attack, a machine gun isn’t going to do much against missels anyway.
I just do not understand how a room full of dead first graders, slaughtered by one man with his rightful weapon of defense, so fast that no one could stop him – did not result in the immediate refusal of sales of automatic weapons of all kinds to anyone, period. No augument.
Maybe if it had, we wouldn’t have a Night Club full of innocent people dead in he club in Orlando.
Adding an amendment to the Constitution limiting the sale of automatic weapons of any kind, along with bullet proof vests and the rest of the military gear to civilians would Not prevent us from arming ourselves.
Just from being walking one man death squads.
The 1986 National Firearms Act already forbids the building of full-auto weapons for sale civilians. Sales of full-auto weapons made and registered before 1986 are legal on some states, but very, VERY highly regulated (to the point that last year there were ZERO crimes committed with legally owned full-auto weapons, because registration and background checks work).
I fail to see how making ballistic armor (they aren’t really completely bullet proof) which is designed to protect people from firearms, would make us safer.
I want to note that I do not agree with the following. But if you’re going to talk gun control, this is the argument you need to ultimately address:
All the talk about hunting, home defense and even defending against invaders or terrorists is so much smoke-screen. The hardcore gun-nuts believe that the Second Amendment exists so that the people could theoretically rise up against a tyrannical government.
Some believe that such an uprising could actually succeed in overthrowing the government, but the more realistic ones believe (based on world history) that the real objective would be to make the country ungovernable. It doesn’t matter to them that guns can’t beat missiles, because that’s not what is supposed to happen. Rather, sporadic violence is supposed to be used to prevent the government from ever being able to feel like it can succeed at continuing to oppress the populace.
BTW, these people are also technically wrong about what the second amendment is for. Google “2nd Amendment Slave Militias” and you’ll see the real (and very disturbing) origins of the ‘militias’ that were actually being discussed.
OK, that didn’t wrap like I thought it would. The link above is an article written by an author of books on slavery, arguing that the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with slave militias, and that the original argument that it did was wrong on several fundamental points of history.
The original amendments all had the purpose of limiting government. The right to bear arms is no exception. The intent was not to enable people to rise up against the government; that’s what votes were for. Rather the intent was that agents of the government would step lightly. The rationale about militias was the smoke screen to get it adopted. Oddly there has never been a tyranny with armed citizens. None of which prevents reasonable regulation of firearms. Differences of opinion in how much regulation is reasonable doesn’t make the other guy evil.
FYI, some friendly advice on the gun control issue … please don’t refer to magazine-fed semi-automatics as “machine guns”.
The reason is because this terminology is inaccurate, which will then be used as an excuse to be a pendant … and derail the conversation away from its intended point.
For example, true automatics have been banned since the 1930’s … as such, to stay on point, the conversation needs to be that Sandy Hook, Orland, Aurora (& others) were all perpetrated with a “mere” magazine fed semi-auto. Unfortunately, this is an example where one needs to be accurate in order to preempt a lame defense…
…and this all strongly parallels the storyline and what Becky’s about to be hit with.
This reminded me of the book, “World War Z” where the zombies froze in the Winter, giving those of us in the Northern climes a respite from terror until the Spring thaw came about.
(I’m not usually into horror, but DAMN, that’s a scary good book. I like that it’s written as a historical documentary instead of a “this is happening now” thing)
That is one of my favorite books. I am highly disappointed in the movie by the same name that wasted the source material. There was so much potential for a GOOD movie there.
I’m still pretty sure that WWZ needs to be a mini-series directed by Ken Burns.
That said, the audiobook (sadly, abridged) was awesome. We listened to it on an all-night car trip once and kept waking up my brother-in-law yelling “WAIT, IS THAT–?” “YES IT IS, THAT IS HIS VOICE”.
You want a good zombie(-ish) story? Try We’re Alive: A Story of Survival.
The creatures in We’re Alive aren’t “technically” zombies because they’re actually alive. But the thing is: They’re intelligent. Well, some of them.
It’s a show that goes from “zombie” apocalypse to bad to worse to, well…..
It’s got all kinds of zombies, too, from regular zombies, fast zombies, Jumpers, smart ones, something that’s essentially a L4D Tank…….and then the bad zombies come out.
And if that’s bad enough, they have to deal with other survivors.
No spoilers but……Scratch is one of the stand-out villains in recent fiction for me.
Season 1 was inspired by a bunch of vets that spotted a tower apartment building in Iraq, and started joking between themselves that it would be the perfect zombie apocalypse defensive point.
Cannot recommend We’re Alive more. Audio Drama with amazing production quality.
True, no joke. You can imagine that she says “I keep telling him he need a gun.” as casually as she might say “I keep telling him he needs a new lawnmower.”
Given the recent storylines, my brain screamed for 5 minutes when I read that, before I could finish the rest of the comic. It uh didn’t get better.
Oh, very insensitive, but then, Carol’s more than shown how little she actually regards what happened to Joyce and Becky beyond it serving as the backdrop for the epic play: World’s Greatest Christian Mom Saves Her Daughter’s Soul.
Usually happens due to their initial dreams being killed off by lack of aptitude/circumstances. Then they manufacture new ones based on their children. It’s a sad coping mechanism that artificially raises the value of sed children in some parent’s eyes, therefor making them more dedicated (yet in a selfish way) parents.
Indeed, I have a recipe book (hmm, an possibly a second one too) that has a squirrel recipe.
It may have declined with the rise of suburbia (viewing squirrels as “cute” and all), but squirrel hunting was thing that was common in the fall when the tree nuts were plentiful.
Viewing squirrels as cute is a terrifying concept to someone who grew up in a rural area where they break into your sheds and destroy all of your belongings. Also, my university has campus squirrels that will literally walk over your feet and it’s nervewracking considering that at home, any time a squirrel didn’t run away sufficiently quickly was shot for potential rabies.
It’s probably kinder than trapping them, though I don’t see why squirrels are an issue. It’s not like they have livestock whose feed the squirrels can poach.
Birds. Folks who’s kids leave home who also happen to live in a suburb tend to do things like birdwatching, with lots of bird feeders. Squirrels eat the birdfeed all at once.
This also seems to be a Midwestern Christian Old people activity. My grandparents fit that category and they an their friends do it, and have all kinds of crazy doohickeys to keep the squirrels out. Google squirrel slinky.
My parents have a plank birdfeeder on a deck right outside their back door, which tends to attract a lot of squirrels. My dad’s friends frequently recommend guns to him, but he doesn’t like the idea of killing off said squirrels. They have dogs that will chase them now but for a while when we were kids, we had some creative rodent control measures going.
The first and less visually entertaining is to use a slingshot to fire chunks of baby carrot at them. I think my dad might have actually made contact once, but overall they were misses. I haven’t bothered to tell my dad that the squirrels at the wildlife rehab center I volunteered at were fed carrots regularly. I’m sure 99% those carrots got eaten a few minutes later.
The other method required more forethought: an empty can placed upside down over a small firecracker hooked up to a model rocket starter, with the trigger button inside the kitchen by the window. The can shielded the squirrels so they didn’t get badly hurt (maybe a little bruised or singed, but nothing long term or life threatening). Watching a squirrel ride an empty cat food can off the deck at high velocity was hugely entertaining as a 9 year old.
Squirrels and similar critters can burrow. Ranchers hate that because a steer can bust a leg stepping into a burrow, and a chipmunk burrow can do damage to an older house’s foundation. Where I live, a .22 rifle is preferred for killin’ squirrel-sized critters, though a plinker pistol can do the job in skilled-enough hands. And yes, squirrels are determined, inventive critters who laugh at most anti-squirrel devices on bird feeders — to the point that my mother has given up on all but her hummingbird feeders.
Have her try mixing cayenne pepper (powdered) in with her bird seed. It won’t bother the birds, because their mouths are dry so it doesn’t burn, the same as it doesn’t burn your hands. But mammalian mouths are wet, and so it deters squirrels, mice, and other varmints from eating your bird seed. Or your chicken feed.
Hell, one place I was in, mice were getting into the cupboard under my bathroom sink and chewing on my glycerine soaps, so I blocked it with just a few layers of paper towels dipped in plaster of Paris; but I mixed cayenne pepper in with the plaster. They scratched at it (I could hear them); but it tasted too bad for them to chew through.
As I mentioned in my above comment, squirrels can get into your outdoor buildings (via burrowing and chewing through wood) and ruin your belongings with poop, scratching, and chewing.
I take it you don’t live in rural Wisconsin. Half the .22s in this state are referred to as “squirrel guns” by their owners (as well as various pellet guns, bb guns, and other small caliber bullshit that idiots think are a great “solution” to pest control). XP
Quite reasonable depending on area. My parents have a shotgun to shoot the prairie rats that keep burrowing around digging up everything. Vermin control hasn’t been successful because one of the nearby houses is rented, and the owner won’t take steps, so they just repopulate there and spread out again.
They’re not the only family in the area with guns for that purpose (and shot specifically chosen to take out the critters, but be less dangerous in case of a badly placed rock or really badly chosen backstop).
I don’t think he will. Yet. But this is fuel on the fire, so when things come to a head, I think Becky can count on the righteous fury of two Browns backing her.
That…is a perspective I had not considered before. Interesting note, Jesus was supposedly descended from Ruth, what with her being David’s (I want to say but don’t actually remember) grandmother.
Yeah, I’d never heard about their relationship in that context as well (as opposed to other relationships in the Bible, the natures of which have been discussed, like David and Jonathan, etc.) until recently. Turns out there’s a bit of debate about the translations and the use of wording for Ruth’s promise and dedication to Naomi as having the same wording as the commitment between a married couple (perhaps related to the passages abt a man leaving his family and old life, etc?). It’s funny, really, growing up the sermons involving them focused a lot more on her commitment to Naomi being about God and converting, but I like learning about the whole-hearted commitment between the two women. It’s something my church didn’t focus on as much. Y’know, them as… Well, people :/
Reminds me of the first time someone describes Carol Danvers’ makeover as Captain Marvel “She has lesbian hair now!”. I was like “WTF is lesbian hair?”. But apparently it’s a thing XD
I had a theater teacher who said there was no better way to communicate a female’s sexual orientation than with her hair. Long hair: straight, short hair: lesbian.
When you don’t like someone’s lifestyle you’ll find anything wrong with it to zero in on and make a big deal. This goes for all sides of that coin too.
The hair isn’t a traditional style. Like think of certain places of work where you have to maintain a certain hairstyle. Where I’m working we were told that we can’t dye our hair in crazy colors.
Don’t you know that non-conforming hairstyles are a gateway to homsexuality, drug use, breaking out into Tom Cochrane songs, and a sudden perchance for parchesi!?
That’s what I don’t understand though. To me hair is one of the most superfluous parts of the human body and the most easily customized! There’s literally no value in judging someone based on thier hair because it could be completely different the next day, hour, fuck even minute. Unless your bald in which case…….sorry?
The Bible actually has pretty strict rules on hair styles for women. The idea is that they are supposed to be ‘modest’. Furthermore, people are somewhat ret-conning their own awareness of her situation. She’s a known lesbian, so ANYTHING that isn’t picture-perfect cookie-cutter Good Christian Handmaiden is immediately assumed to be her way of ‘flaunting’ her sexuality in their faces. The idea that this is simply her attempt exploring her own feelings about herself will never even occur to them, because women aren’t expected to HAVE feelings about themselves–that’s what men are for.
WHAT IN THE… ok, SO: I had to google the term because I’ve never heard it before, BUT I KNOW THAT GAME! I’ve played it when I was little, mostly everyone in Romania knows it, but it’s called “Nu te supara, frate!” over here, which translates to ‘Don’t get mad, brother!’. Seems someone nicked it from India last century (my best bet is communists, but it could be older then that and I’m simply unaware of it). At least that’s what I’m inferring, because the two boards look almost identical. It could have different rules, but… I’m kind of shocked, honestly.
The things you learn in a comment section.
Parcheesi probably had multiple entries to Europe, but I suspect the British Raj was the most recent pathway. “Parcheesi” itself is a commercial version of Pachisi, and in the U.S. and Canada I suspect the most common variant is the game Sorry! (exclamation point part of the name).
I played Sorry! obsessively as a child, and was bemused/pleased to see it appear in some bars and cafes next to the cribbage boards.
In this sort of sect of Christianity, Becky’s hairstyle is genuinely seen as loudly defiant of the godly/modest way a woman should present herself, especially in the church itself. When I was briefly forced into this brand of god (my mom went all Born-again for a minute), I had blue hair. Mind you, I was twelve at this time. The other parents in the church forbid their children from being friends with me or speaking to me beyond necessary. Made youth group particularly trying on my self-esteem.
Then we moved and she got bored with god. Thank you, Army.
A lot of denominations have certain viewpoints about hair, like women’s hair needs to be long because it’s a sign of humility or chastity or her (subservient) place in the home or something like that (because of something in the Bible, of course), while guys are expected to have clean-cut, short hair. Becky cutting her hair to a stereotypical guy-length goes against all of that (rightfullysobecausefuckthatnoise).
My mother has this friend whose son grew his hair long and while it… Did not look good, none of us had any problem with it? Until she (the mother) came to my mother saying that she was upset because “people would judge her” about… His hair? And my mom was like “who cares, also, you have short hair so you don’t really have a leg to stand on if you’re going to try to theologically debate him into cutting his hair?” Yeah I’m… Not a fan of that woman.
I figure that the congregation figures that the new hairdo and Becky’s newfound sexuality are connected. They take it as a message, a constant reminder and I’m sure Becky meant it as such.
Yeah, she definitely meant it as such. As Ethan said, “She didn’t just leave it. Becky nuked the closet from orbit, just to be sure.”
Also, consider how badly Joyce reacted to the haircut initially – Joyce’s mindset (used to be) a litmus test for just how poorly something would be received in her church.
It’s a style associated with lesbians. (I mean, non-lesbians can wear undercuts, but it’s pretty good advertising that she’s into ladies.)
It’s also connected with a rejection of ‘proper feminine’ roles, including showing men that she actively doesn’t care whether they find her beautiful or not.
But mostly, they can’t handle the reality of seeing her being herself.
So, “no, I’m not a lesbian, my boyfriend really likes this look”? If it wasn’t Becky at all, I imagine it might be a good deflection, as they might then question why the boyfriend is some kind of weirdo, instead, with tastes that aren’t 100% God-approved…? I dunno, this is beyond my experience.
Hair is the first battleground. It’s a powerful tool for self-expression, so when a group does not want that self-expression they censor it. Hair is the fight that so many groups have to war over to be themselves. It’s the war over black hair that deems “white” hair styles “more professional”, it’s the first battleground of the newly out queer person or trans person, how they can signal their gender identity or they’re attractions, it’s the tool of colonialism to try and wipe out a tribe’s hair styles and customs.
Hair is the battleground and to this church, hair is what they’ve used to control Becky for so long, to tell her no, this is what you are, this is what you will become. This is your fate. And when she decided to get a haircut that was modern and rad and more associated with queer people than not. That was her revolution.
Once when I was going to a UU church (liberal religion, not like this one) I had an elderly women ask me what was up with my generation dying their hair weird colors, how could they mess with their bodies like that? (I had a pretty normal hairstyle at the time.) I read it not as a criticism but an honest question by someone who was genuinely confused. I saw she had a pierced ears and explained it was just another way to customize appearance and express yourself, like piercing your ears so you could wear jewelry, only less painful or permanent.
She… got it…. and clearly didn’t get it. It’s like she’d filed one act in one category and another in another, and I’d successfully torn down the wall between the two categories, but that just left her more confused.
That was at one of the most liberal churches you’ll ever find.
It’s not really about Christian doctrine. To the best of my knowledge, the only Christian doctrines about hair are to not cut it or shave (Leviticus) and that you aren’t honorable if you don’t shave (some flavor of Paul), with those applying either equally to men and women or moreso to men.
No, what this is really about is that people have unrealistic Expectations about what the world around them is like, and when those Expectations get violated, some personalities get prissy, defensive, belligerent, and hostile. And “privileged and conservative” seems to make people much, much more likely to be that kind of personality.
Hair styles have always been a big deal. In the 60’s men wearing long hair had the crap beat out of them if caught by the self righteous. Boys with long hair were suspended from school, and suspension meant just that.
Girls didn’t have that sort of problem then: but dye your hair blue or put a strip in it, and find out how fast you got sent home.
60’s? Hah. I’ve had to deal with it throughout the 2000s!
You see, I’ve had my hair in spikes for nearly the entirety of high school. Came with trying to be less shy and focusing more on my extroverted side (turns out I’m an ambivert).
However, I’ve had several jabs and even threats from teachers, some going as far as threatening to lower my ‘Behavior’ grade for it (Note: In the Romanian system at the time, if that grade got lower then a 5 on a 10-scale, you got to repeat the entire year!). I’ve successfully rebutted all of them, but it was a struggle at times. It’s still a very real issue people have to live/deal with in certain places/countries.
For the record, the formerly ‘normal’ aggression towards radically different hair styles seems to have dissipated from the vast majority of Romania, but since this part of the story is being played out in rural America… yeah, I’m not at all surprised.
All I can come up with is that they know she’s a lesbian, so it stands out to them. Otherwise, I agree. I’ve known plenty of women with short hair. My mom has had it as long as I’ve been alive. My sister had a similar buzz-the-sides haircut at one point. Never once saw anyone freak out about it. Maybe some old people saying stuff about “kids these days,” but nothing more.
It’s different, so it stands out. This does not seem to be a church where cutting your hair is a sin. (My mom was ostracized from some Pentecostals when she first cut her hair.)
When my wife (who had long red hair to her waist when we first started dating) cut her hair to shorter than mine, my family made all sorts of passive aggressive comments and questions about it. :-/
Actually when it was written it was actually meant to be progressive as the Jewish people at the time required married women to cut their hair. Actually it’s really interesting how each Abrahamic religious text is actually more progressive than the last. The Quran actually allows women to own and inherit property (even if it is less than men it’s still more than before). I sometimes wonder why there hasn’t been a newer more progressive revelation since but I guess whatever higher power exists got fed up with the followers fucking things up and just said “Screw it” and now we are on our own figuring things out.
To quote my mom (who is atheist, ironically enough): “That hairstyle makes her look like a dyke!” (Said about every woman she ever saw with hair cut above the bottom of their ears anywhere on their head. XP)
I shit you not, I was a senior in high school before I had bangs that didn’t touch the bottom of my nose when they weren’t pulled back or curled, and that was only because a salon fucked up my perm that badly that year. ^^; Otherwise, they were cut shorter than the rest of my hair fairly often, but because I had wavy hair, they were only short because of the curls. Wet and flat, they were all over my face. XP
For the record, I’m rocking a buzz cut now. 😀 My cut previous to this was the same as Becky’s, because as soon as I saw Becky’s undercut I was like, “That’s so fuckin’ rad, I’m doing that one next!” 😀 I can’t remember the last time I had a “traditionally feminine” haircut. ^^; Probably college some time.
FWIW, I’m now 36, and my mom still doesn’t like the buzz cuts or undercuts on women, but she’s “chilled” enough that she tolerates pixie cuts and doesn’t say anything to me about my hair. XP
i don’t understand how anyone could be bothered by that. I don’t even like that kind of hairstyle but like… who gives a shit. Not everyone has to be modeled after your exact ideal of beauty
I was actually just thinking about that! “WHY DID SHE SPEND THAT MONEY ON A HAIRCUT INSTEAD OF GIVING IT TO THE POOR USING IT TO NOT BE SUCH A LEECH ON JOYCE!” Well, folks, THIS IS WHY. Because having her hair the way she had it before was a really, really big deal in the church she grew up in, so cutting her hair had enormous symbolic connotations and she wanted every. single. one of them. She threw off that veil and burned it.
I think Joyce’s reaction of “too much Becky” is a lot more meaningful in retrospect, because in this church it looks like being too much of yourself (including RIGHTEOUS ANGER mode Joyce) is not recommended for women. It’s how Joyce and Becky (and Jocelyne!) grew up. And honestly, if Carol has internalized this stuff in order to be the Biblical Womanhood Enforcer, no wonder she’s such a mean, bitter pain in the ass.
when you proscribe to gender roles in this way it makes you completely, utterly miserable. having to shut up and mind your ps and qs and never have your own opinion and dance around men instead of owning yourself and having boundaries – you are constantly reminded that you are seen as less. that you’re not complete without a man.
And the one a few days after called KD. Not only for how much foulness Joyce has internalized with regards to her own worth and value, but also because of how stunned she was at the notion of actually choosing her own path, having value outside what utility she could provide for a future man.
Like that was literally not something she processed in any way, because of how much women in her society are expected to be Mrs. X rather than their own name, their own self.
Becky reclaiming Becky was a hugely important act and a huge rebellion. It’s why Joyce reacted in shock to the notion of her being “so much Becky”. Because if Becky can be so much Becky, if Dorothy believes that Joyce can be so much Joyce… then maybe she could hope for her own life and in her mind even considering that notion is a sin against God.
It’s also why I think Joyce’s arc will end with her breaking away fully from the Church. Becky made peace with the notion that God and the church in her eyes are not even remotely the same, but to Joyce, she has no means of separating the two and so as she sees more and more of the awfulness of her church, so she is in the notion of God she was raised to believe in.
Honestly i’m hoping that eventually Willis will include a character who is religious WITHOUT being a total asshat. Which I mean, unlikely, but we do exist. They could maybe show her that there’s a middle ground where you can have faith but still be a good person.
This excellent comeback would be funnier if it hadn’t been at least the tenth time I’ve seen the initial attack happen in this comment field. And I was not really reading the comment field that much during the Toedad storyline, for example.
And sure, there are Christians who are religious people without being asshats. Both in this comic, and also in the real world. But if I were you, GenericGuestName, I would not be so quick to include myself in that category.
I didn’t mean that in a “i’m so angry he makes fun of christians!” way. I just mean it’s what i’m hoping for personally. I don’t really see Becky in that light. I got the impression she wasn’t really devout. Which isn’t bad. I just hope to eventually see someone who is. Joyce is good, but at this point her faith seems to be coming down around her ears. What I MEANT was that I hope to see someone who is devout and confident in their faith without it being completely horrible to others. Again, I did NOT mean this in a “I’m so angry” way, just as a it would be cool if this happened. Billie and Becky don’t strike me as particularly devout. The only ones that came across as devout to me are Joyce, Hank, and whatsherface (the asshat), and hank’s wife (the other asshat). Sorry if this came across as whiney or what have you, it was just my opinion. Hell i’m not even Christian. I just thought it would be cool if she met someone who could show her that there is a way to be religious and not asshat-y. Maybe her dad will become that eventually, but as I recall he hasn’t been such in the past. Not compared to his wife of course, but still.
Oh, it is the classic “OK, you gave me examples just of what I wanted, but they do not count, because they are Not True Christians*” bait trap. Never seen that before!**
*Or as you would say it, “devout and confident in the faith”. Same difference.
**Except for almost all the times someone else has made the same complaint and gotten perfectly good examples in return.
not asshats: Joyce, Becky, Hank, (technically) Billie…
I mean, okay, as far as I can tell the basic concept at the heart of this comic is “everyone fails at some point, everyone is an asshole at some point, and we love ’em anyway” and… hey, wait, that seems like a morality that is pretty much my exact brand of Christianity! WHAT A TWIST.
I’m sure she got it from somewhere, and I’m 73% sure it wasn’t gamma radiation, because we’ve seen what that does to people and they die rather than get buff.
I’m hoping and praying that if Joyce gets angry (or maybe she or Becky will start crying? Or both?), Hank will really get the message and either stand up for them or comfort them. I’m not optimistic necessarily, but I think it’s a viable possibility!
I dunno, “a gun would be useful for x task,” where x is equal to keeping the squirrels away, hardly seems political.
Her tone and expression are a little horrific with context, but not political. Not that hair or sexuality is either.
The one that really is from Carol about using a gun to expel the squirrels and the other one from the conversation Hank is overhearing:
“I get that what he did to her was unacceptable. I’m not excusing that. It was awful. Horrendous.”
They are discussing Toedad firing a rifle in the general direction of Becky&Joyce on the IU campus.
they kind of intermingle in interesting ways. like the whole gun control issue is about rights vs. abuse. rights have tended to be held as more important than potential abuse. the kind of gun you’d need to drive off squirrels, i’m told, isn’t the kind of gun that you could use to hurt a human being. and that’s kind of the whole point.
These are ground squirrels. You get ground squirrels with traps that you set in their burrow openings, not guns. Everyone knows that. Bullets don’t go through dirt that well. And using a gun to kill any kind of squirrel, tree or ground, inside a town is absolutely ridiculous, especially a town as big as theirs. Even a squirrel gun can hurt a human being. This Carol character doesn’t grasp guns or ground squirrels.
that kind of passive-aggressive loud whispering is pretty gendered, yeah. and this is a place that is all about appropriate gender roles. i guess i would be pretty surprised to find out that this speaker was a dude or a genderless person. guys in this culture aren’t socialized to think that they can’t just say something to someone and have it respected.
I did a quick google search for “politics”. Here’s the definition Google provides:
Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, definition “of, for, or relating to citizens”) is the process of making uniform decisions applying to all members of a group. It also involves the use of power by one person to affect the behavior of another person.
That’s the real meaning of “the personal is political”. That there is no aspect of one’s personal life that isn’t affected and impacted by politics in one form or another. How we love, how we fuck, how we pee, how we work, how we recreation, how we take care of our bodies, even how we die. Everything is affected by politics. Even the status quo is a political stance.
Which is the extra nastiness in setting only a specific group of people’s lives as political or a certain set of political beliefs as political and thus “controversial” and “not to be brought up”. It’s about enforcing certain ways of existing out of the public sphere and creating a political argument that one’s own political stances are just “natural” and “apolitical”.
You don’t undddderstaaaand!!! It’s not politics when you’re aggressively defending a regressive worldview, it’s only politics when one expresses oneself or defends oneself from said regressive worldview.
Geez, it’s right there in Page 4 of your handout, right after the section on how people existing is them shoving their identity down your throat and how defending oneself from bullying attack is the real bullying.
Well i mean, didn’t Jesus say to turn the other cheek or something? So obviously not letting bullies ground you into the dirt is totes anti Christian. /sarcasm
It’s also super fun when they assume you’re HOH enough they can actually whisper shit like this right behind you. Joke’s on them, turns out I can hear asshat-ese at any volume.
Eh. When people think you’re Deaf, they say all sorts of interesting things around you while you’re trying to fix the internet in the front office. Keeping a straight face was the hardest part.
You probably want to add mine, too: “Get into the mindset of really horrible people.” I can usually explain what’s actually going on behind incoherent internet screeds and comments like the one in the comic to people who are genuinely befuddled by them, but it always makes me feel like I need a shower afterwards.
I’m not entirely sure what HOH stands for, but I have this very amusing image in my head of water molecules acting very strange, so I thank you for that…and now they have fancy hats, because church is all about those fancy hats, at least according to my aunt.
Hard of hearing. These people assumed it meant fully Deaf. Trouble is, while I can’t always distinguish the typical man’s voice anymore to hear words, (deeper pitch + for some societal reason men mumble a lot), the typical high-pitch of the judgemental church-going asshat women are still all too clear.
It was fun for the minute it took them to work it out. People gossip about the most damning things when they think you can’t hear them.
Yup. When DoA updates, I know it’s officially nighttime and I should start considering sleep.
Then I look out the window and holy shit the moon is pretty tonight, fuck yeah California.
I feel like that’s common, where people who are hateful about other’s existence live such scared small lives that enforcing the crab bucket is the only way they can feel better about their bad choices.
I wanna be super jazzed about Hank and what will hopefully be him defending Becky, but holy shit Carol. About a week ago a man pointed a RIFLE at your daughter and her BEST FRIEND and here you are all “hahaha my husband needs a gun to shoot the squirrels” WOW. WHAT THE FUCK.
It’s been all the illustrative how much the context of last week has been scrubbed clean in this little community that spawned it. I mean, this was the church that bred Toedad and his beliefs and everyone’s ranting about lesbians being sinners and joking about guns, like two of their own weren’t nearly murdered by another one of their own.
Some people, even some who are not Carol, can differentiate between possessing a gun as a squirrel-control device and using a gun as an intimidation/harm device against other people. Yes, I get that the intent is to reinforce the presentation of Carol as horrifyingly tone-deaf (mission accomplished).
Yeah, seriously. Does Carol not care about Joyce at all, beyond as an extension of herself to control? She can’t muster up enough compassion not to mention guns while the daughter who was very recently threatened with a firearm is visiting?
I am really liking Hank. Joyce has a supportive parent, Becky has a supportive father figure, and Jocelyn is much more likely to have a supportive parent should she decide to come out. Hank may not like all the changes in his life, but he knows he’s a father AND that his religion says to love one another, so he will do his darndest to deal with his own issues before trying to force his children to change.
Ya know, the problem with how I speed read is that I skip some words, and sometimes context goes missing. Like how I read ‘Becky has a supportive father figure’ as ‘Becky has a supportive father’. I had a bit of a wtf moment there.
Yup, that’s the role occupied by young women. To be pretty, to snag themselves a husband. Later, they’ll be expected to be the perfect holy housewives, but for now, be pretty, get a man.
And if the men “playfully” swat at their behinds, well that’s only their fault for existing and being pretty. I mean, aren’t you supposed to safeguard your virtues ladies, I mean back in my day, we weren’t all strumpets, and so on…
A culture where women are decorations or victims, and victims must be mercilessly destroyed.
It’s partly an Old Testament thing, where Jewish women, in order to show that they were faithful Jewish women, were required to wear there hair long and covered. It was partly for religious reasons, but also partly for reasons of self-identifying as an ethnic Jew in ancient Palestine, and thus not being assumed to be a Canaanite woman.
I’m only aware of it as a New Testament thing. 1 Corinthians 11:6 — “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
Yes, there’s an “if” there, and that’s the out for many.
But the context still is problematic, as this is the point where it defines women as being subservient to men. The command to cover your head is a sign of subservience. It even says that a woman’s beauty exists for the glory of man, while a man’s exists for the glory of God.
Also, in Greek and Roman society the slaves were often known for their shaved heads, while free people had hair. So that explains at least one of the “if”s.
this whole conversation has me thinking about when i cut my hair short a couple years ago. i ended up absolutely hating it, hahaha – i don’t even remember why i did it. i think i just did it because i felt like i should try it and then it took me a full year and a half to grow it back. i missed being able to braid it and put it in ponytails and play with it, etc. i guess i’m glad i tried it, but it made me miserable until it grew out again.
It’s nice to see that some things never change. Church ladies still stand around casting the first stone. I still remember the laments when segregation was abolished: “I know if one showed up here we’d have to let them in, but I just don’t know what I’d do.”
Okay, sincere question to any with more churchgoing experience than fairly limited amount I have. Is the hair thing really an issue? Everything else being thrown at Becky is recognizable to me as an unpleasant reality of some types of Christianity, and I know there are sects for whom hairstyles are an element of their faith, but I’ve never encountered backlash about hairstyles from mainstream Christians as a phenomenon. Have I just been lucky enough to miss it?
It’s a non-conformal style. Anything that goes against the norm, even hairstyles, are highly frowned upon in some (many?) churches. That she’s gay just makes it all the worse and the hair gives them more ammo to judge.
So the problem isn’t that it’s short, it’s that it’s unusual enough to be seen as confrontational and political? Geez, what’s it like to live a life in which you feel the need to police the hairstyles of teenage girls.
Ten to one Toedad took her to one of those at some point, too. I mean, he wouldn’t even let her cut it feminine-but-short without an excuse, much less this.
Try the 1960’s when girls were sent home from school if they tried something that outrageios, and God forbid you put a stripe in your hair, or dye it.
Boys were sent home if their hair touched their collar.
And the schools ruled at the time: if your family wanted you back in school, you fixed the hair to match the rules.
Semi-related, my grandma basically said to my face I was less of a man and no sane girl would like me because I tend to have long hair and I have a pierced ear, and that’s not masculine.
The taboo on hats indoors is pretty ingrained in me, but I invite anyone who thinks long hair unmanly to go watch a Conan movie and/or broaden their idea of masculinity.
You’ve just been lucky enough to miss it. The more fundamental branches of the church really preach against any non-“feminine” (aka long, traditional female hairstyles) because of course good, Godly women would show their modesty, chasteness, and focus on God (and not worldly things, like following trends and fashion) through how they wear their hair. Guys also tend to have specific hair rules to follow (mostly short, clean-cut, etc) because they’re men and the rulers of the home and leaders in Christ, so they can’t have hairstyles that have feminine traits.
(That should all be read as being sarcastic, but not to you, Ross, I swear. I just… those views are mindboggling. > > )
It depends a lot on the church and its attitudes. Conservative places like this? Definitely it’s a problem. Less because of any particular doctrine, and more because it’s, well, not conservative.
A lot of people are jumping on it as some doctrinal thing, but it could just as easily be close-community viewpoint. Becky changed her hair to highlight the change in herself, and the community is now dealing with the change, unable to just pretend everything’s the same as it used to be. “She used to be so beautiful” isn’t some hellfire condemnation in itself, it’s wishing for a past that no longer exists. Similar mentality that made Toedad snap.
This. Her long hair is a symbol of her femininity and womanhood. By cutting it, she is showing her gender confusion that is leading her away from the path of the Lord and into being confused about the “proper” roles for men and women. This being of course the only reason why a “good” girl could decide she is a lesbian (minus of course demon possession or straight up being secretly bad).
And by doing it willfully and without shame, she is revealing that she was a “bad” girl after all, and is now too sin touched to be saved.
I don’t have any churchgoing experience and I didn’t grow up in a particularly church-y city, and I’ve still run into this kind of attitude. I’m kind of impressed that there are commenters here who haven’t? Like, people care a LOT about how other people dress and make themselves up, including their hairstyles and colors. The media flips its shit every single time a famous woman gets a pixie cut, immediately speculating that she might be a lesbian. This kind of stuff is only amplified exponentially by being in a deeply religious community, so I don’t see how any of this is a surprise.
As an alternative example, in Catholic schools, short hair is frowned upon as well coz it’s considered not feminine enough. Furthermore, a non-secular example are people saying “you’re pretty for someone with short hair” or “you look like a lesbian” coz apparently short hair is ugly and/or gay??? So it’s a combination of all that, I guess.
I’m just gonna say: Bill Gothard. BILL GOTHARD. Just. I don’t know where to start explaining how all this shit ties together, but Bill Gothard is a good start. His creepy fixation on very young women with a very specific kind of hair got turned into a WELL THIS IS THE WAY BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD SHOULD LOOK, I’M SURE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PARTICULAR FETISH thing that then got broadcast throughout the conservative homeschooling universe, which sure enough brought a lot of young ladies who looked a certain way into his orbit. http://www.recoveringgrace.org/gothardfiles/
it’s more of a tumblr thing, and it speaks mostly to middleclass white feminism, i think. it’s kind of an interesting meme because it bounces from outright misogyny to class issues? like the people who have experienced the “I Want to Speak to a Manager” haircut are going to be people who are working minimum wage. but like the reason why it stands out that they want to speak to a manager is because the wearer of this haircut is going to be typically female.
BUT LIKE as obnoxious as white feminists can be, if they want to speak to a manager, they’re speaking out for their own needs; and that like this haircut goes against gender norms which is why it gets a meme. i can just about promise you that there are older men in the same situation who are much, much more obnoxious and demanding. but like there’s not much lovable about them, they’re just kind of scary. idk, i could probably make a meme about the old bologna guy who came to my deli, but they’re not that memorable because white guys are considered default.
like, memes don’t always get circulated on tumblr like they do on twitter. twitter will do hashtags to bring awareness to social problems/things they care about, but tumblr memes have to have something you can love about them that’s also instantly recognizable. like the PTA mom meme: something comes up that typifies white middleclass culture, inevitably you’re gonna have someone say “fight me helen” and it is on. the PTA brownies are gonna fly like a guilty pleasure jerry springer binge watch, or reminding rachel that you know about her husband cheating on her with the secretary. *drama popcorn nom*
ANYWAYS (to bring us back to somewhat DoA related), the “i want to speak to a manager” haircut is not unlike Becky’s haircut here. so, i mean, her last haircut while super short was on the Sam Carter side of self-expression. it was acceptable, looked like it came from the 80s, it was traditional enough that it was okay. but by upgrading to the “i want to speak to a manager” haircut she’s associating herself with feminism and modernism even more than she’s associated herself with lesbianism. and that is gonna scare the bejeezers out of her church’s little conservative hearts.
The “why do they have to keep bringing ‘politics’ into everything” lament. Also known as “the very existence of gay people makes me uncomfortable but they keep reminding me they exist by so they should be punished.”
Of course, for the most part the “reminder that they exist” basically amounts to people basically living their lives in a way that makes them happy and fulfilled instead of as if they are ashamed of their existence.
Yup! They want erasure. It’s okay for gay people to exist so long as there are no reminders that they’re gay, unless their being gay is making them unhappy.
Well, Whammy, to be fair, gay people do keep on existing, no matter how hard they pray for them all to disappear. If there’s anything that more fits the mold of violent attack on their very identities, I’ve yet to hear it.
Back in my days as an Episcopalian, we were encouraged to actually read the whole book, not just those chapters that adhered to a particular ideology.
As such, I got to understand that most of the time, Christ reacted to people failing to be as good as they could with either a bit of humor or with a benign disappointment.
There’s two instances in the Gospels, really, of him being actually angry. One is when he is tempted/taunted by Satan in the wilderness, and once is when he drives the merchants and moneylenders from the temple. In both cases, he uses the same word to explain his anger: “Hypocrite”.
I’m suspecting that Hank’s read those passages, too.
Going by Hank’s opinion of Ross, he hasn’t been ignoring them. That said, he might not actually take a stand here– this doesn’t seem like a battle he can actually win.
Also pretty sure going by flashbacks, that Becky was below 18 when she had long hair, or at least just barely 18. In which case, good job random church goer, for mourning that fact that someone so young is no longer beautiful in your eyes like holy shit that’s not your business wow. That’s just creepy.
I don’t know if it was just a product of the particular flavor of awful I grew up around, but creepy pedophilic fetishization of young church women (to the point of some of the sects straight up shopping young (14) girls out to older men by their parents to try and see who would be their chosen husband).
And the comments by the older church men were definitely eye-raising when they went on about the rejuvenating powers of youth and how only the young still have that “innocence”.
And of course “she used to be so beautiful when she had the haircut she had when her mother lived. Wow, I wonder if her death affected her, somehow. Maybe we should offer her warmth and compassion or… nah, let’s nag about her haircut instead.”
…I think I did hear stuff like that about hairs and the stigma with girls daring to cut theirs.
Probably the comment section, possibly The Author’s tumblr. Hmm.
Hmm. I said yerterday that I thought Joyce might snap, some time during or immediately after this service. But perhaps… just perhaps… the one who snaps will be Hank?
I’d like to see Joyce snap first, in front of everyone, an have the congregation start in on her too, then have Hank step up behind everyone and just rain hellfire down on them all!
Would they still complain about her hair if she wasn’t a lesbian but still had the same haircut? Probably would be my guess. It would be like that where I’m from. Religion would have had nothing to do with it either, just small rural town attitudes.
I just don’t think so–or at least, not as much. Short hair has never been a problem in my church. The only thing I think might happen was that people would start rumors wondering if she were gay.
Would Toedad have pulled her out of school and then chased her down with a gun and kidnapped her if she wasn’t a lesbian, thus providing ample opportunity to use Becky’s hair as a way to justify-not-justify what Toedad did? Not Excusing That Butt is the second cousin to the Not Racist Butt. (Not Sexist Butt being the first cousin. :p)
If Becky had come home with long, “sweet-girl” hair like her mom was apparently forced to have, I would imagine the gossip would be “Maybe Toedad made a terrible mistake and the lesbian thing was just a misunderstanding and we can find Becky a nice, manly husband to prove it.”
I feel a major level-up coming on. And if Hank does what I think he’s about to do, he will have also opened up a serious lead in the “best dad” competition.
And how appropriate this strip appears right after Father’s Day.
If he does, it could land them all in hot water. I can see that happening; Joyce remembers her unknown sister’s advice to lie low, bottles up her rage, and then a moment later Hank explodes.
It would be consistent with the ways of The Willis.
VOICE: “She used to be so beautiful.”
VOICE 2: “I know! And that dress! Goodness, you almost expect Super Mario to come bursting in here to rescue her at any moment…!”
If Hank is REALLY, REALLY good, listens to his heart and keeps making the right-but-hard choices, he may keep not only one but THREE daughters. That is worth some internal anguish.
Indeed. Hank’s journey may end up devastating Joyce’s home life more though, especially if Carol reacts poorly to his views on certain issues, which I am sure will come up. But hey…Amber’s mom is still single. *waggles eyebrows*
“I wish you got yourself a gun, Hank. Couldn’t you be more like someone we know who owns a gun…. on a completely unrelated topic, I think you should pull your daughter from school and be more firm with lesbians.”
She’s Toedad without the violence, using words instead of fists to cut and threaten. Making sure there’s just an air of menace that dissuades any attempt at rebellious youth shenanigans.
I also love how, when actually faced with a lesbian, the congregation (and Carol) can’t do anything but gossip.
And we need to remember that Carol is really passive-aggressive. It’s been shown that she believes that men are active and women are subservient to them. She has never said anything directly to Becky or Joyce. That was JOHN. He was the one that LITERALLY BRUSHED IT ASIDE when Joyce told him that she had a gun in her face. He was the one that LITERALLY TOLD BECKY IT WAS HER FAULT that Ross did what he did.
And being more generally, oh, dearie me just making general conversation to the table about recent events when everyone is around.
But yeah, very big on the passive-aggressive versus the active aggression and dismissal of John.
I think it’s also really interesting how so many of them have avoided addressing Becky directly. Even Hank who’s been turning this new leaf has spoken far more about Becky when she was nowhere near than he has actively addressed her and checked in on her.
It really emphasizes how this whole culture outside of Joyce and Jocelyne view Becky more as a prop to stand in for a “gay people spiritually preying on Christians” “debate” than any actual person.
Just get some mouse traps. Put them where cats and dogs cant get to them. Kills ground squirrels dead. Killed 16 of them when they were destroying our garden and burrowing under the sidewalk last year. 3-4 are cute. 20 or more are a nuisance.
They put me to workin’ in the school BOOK STORE
Checkout counter and I got bored
Teachers were looking for me all around
Two hours later you know where I was found
SMOKIN’ IN THE BOYS ROOM…
Is the “them” Joyce and Becky? Or is the “them” Joyce’s Family + Becky? If it’s the former do “they” (the disembodied voices) think that Joyce and Becky are together? Questions to ponder.
That’s a good point, the community they grew up in would be well aware of how close joyce and becky were growing up, and now that Becky’s openly gay (and tagging along with the browns), it wouldn’t take too much mental gymnastics to draw the conclusion that joyce is gay as well. After all, what godfearing Christian would be supportive of homosexuality if they weren’t gay too? That would be silly.
That’s pretty much how the speculation works. When everyone thought I was a gay male, my male best friend was presumed to be gay as well because he stood up for me. Apparently a similar thing happened to my ex when she got outed as bi where they presumed that all of her friend circle must be lesbians “as well”.
That is an “Oh, hell no!” face if I’ve ever seen one. Something tells me though that he will sit through church slowly getting angrier, and finally, when they get home decide to start looking for another church. This then proves to be the final straw that breaks the back of his and Carol’s marriage, John takes Carol’s side, and Hank ends up getting back in touch with the estranged Jordan while trying, and sometimes failing because failures and mistakes are inevitable for a human being, to be the best supportive father and father figure he can. At least, this is what my hopeful optimism believes.
I think it’s because I’m generally cynical of familial relationships that are toxic. At that point, people just stop being family. And sometimes it’s for the best. It definitely was for my family. And after a few years of estrangement new, healthy relationships were able to be formed. I would also like to seriously apologize if I come across as passive aggressive with this comment. I want to give an explanation, and text is a very hard medium to do that in properly. And also if this reply sounds jaded or offensive, as it is not my intention to do that.
No, I got it. Just big on families is all. Just sad when things can’t work out. Even more so when that’s the optimal course. It should never get there.
I believe Hank will have to leave Carol. She’s bigoted, bitter, self-righteous, narrow-minded, and unloving. She is one of many hateful and intolerant so-called Christians, similar to those who felt the victims of the gay club massacre deserved injury and death. I doubt that Hank has ever felt glee upon anyone’s suffering, and I am almost sure that schadenfreude for so-called sinners is very frequent for Carol. I get the feeling that love and tolerance is natural for Hank. He is growing spiritually and Carol is not. Unless Carol is capable of making a huge change, which I doubt, I can’t see that the Browns will have a future together.
Depends. Are we talking about separation of church and state where the church is protected from the state, or the separation of church and state where the state is protected from the church, or the separation of church and state where the church takes over the state and calls it religious freedom a la Kim Davis?
Just so we’re clear here: When my grandmother first came home from college with her hair cut short (not with an undercut, dear lord this was the 60s, but just cut at ALL much less SHORT), my great-grandmother cried because she thought her daughter was going to go to hell. My great-grandmother lived until 2005, and while she did eventually get over her daughters getting haircuts (I don’t think ANY of my great-aunts have had long hair for over twenty years at least) she never cut her hair until the day she died. (Also wore a prayer covering all the time.) When I’m at places where the same not-quite-Amish-borderline-Plain Pennsylvania Dutch sect we’re from is more common, I still see girls my age wearing Appropriately Modest Skirts and their hair pinned back under their prayer coverings.
Different sect, but this is real, people.
(I’m lucky enough that most of my exposure to this brand of religion was nonetheless the gentle quiet mostly positive type, but it is in fact A Real Thing.)
“I’m not excusing that.” Well, no, you kind of are. When you’re comparing “kidnapping and assault with a firearm” to “got a kinda-butch haircut”,you’re pretty much excusing it, or at the least trivializing the fuck out of it.
“I just don’t think church should be a place for politics.” And your very existence is political, so get out. Real nice, blue-hair. (I’m assuming. I’m aware that my assumptions are rooted in Texas gossiping old church ladies, so bear with me.)
“She used to be so beautiful.” Code for “DAMN, maybe I’m more towards the middle of the Kinsey spectrum than I thought. Wonder if she brimps.”
(And no, I understand – it’s not masked desire, it’s just nasty intolerance.)
I am sometimes very, VERY glad that I was raised under Extremely-Reform Judaism.
All of this is on point. “Your very existence is political”, exactly, damn. ‘We don’t mind if you’re different, just don’t flaunt it’, is the kind of thing these people say, except existing and not being ashamed -IS- flaunting it.
This. It’s a justification for violence and attack, because it makes the marginalized person at fault for “making the first strike”. If they “flaunted it”, “shoved it in your face”, then of course, you were justified to attack and scream and hurt the person for existing.
And all while telling yourself that you don’t actually hate X, just the uppity ones who just throw it in your face and expect you to like them and approve of them. And it’s not bigotry. It’s not!
The “it’s their fault for making me bigoted by THROWING IT IN MY FACE” crowd is painfully similar to the “LOOK WHAT YOU’RE MAKING ME DO TO YOU” brand of abuse. We can’t possibly be expected to avoid being cruel to other people when we’re PUSHED like that! (Other cheek? no, that only counts toward people who are… um… LOOK IT JUST DOESN’T COUNT HERE.)
Oh very much so. And is reflected also in this particular flavor of Christianity and its fixation on a God figure whose wrath you must avoid long enough to make it to the Rapture, rather than a genuinely loving being.
That abuser’s logic is so potent and reverberates so thoroughly and must make a lot of sense to those who perpetuate it.
*little girls voice* “I thought that maybe, if I made myself different enough, my father would not recognize me when he came hunting for me with a gun. It di.. didn’t work”
I know, this is such a positive sign that he’s starting to go the full Joyce. He’s been “tolerating” Becky up to now, but getting angry on her behalf, seeing her as a human and that shit as awful as it is? That’s him genuinely supporting her. If he nurtures that, then they and maybe hopefully Jocelyne will at least still have a dad out of all this.
Damn, what kind of stuck up church is that? I mean, it’s just hair. The only time I even saw hair even close to Becky’s was -at- church. Nobody bothered to dress themselves up much at school, except for prom or homecoming. You know, except the occasional girl who was trying to get laid. Wasn’t hard, though. My school was famous for being ‘friendly’, apparently.
If your church is big on gender norms, it probably cares about hair. I know people from churches where cutting hair at all was a big deal. For women, anyway.
I understand that the comment about her hair is more a religious intolerance thing, but honestly I’ve always felt it looked pretty weird too. Not exactly sure what it’s supposed to be, maybe if I saw a picture of an actual person with the intended hairstyle?
That said, I probably shouldn’t be talking. I would post a picture, but no. I’m not going to post a picture.
It’s a common style in younger and more alternative girl’s communities and has been worn by a few wlw celebrities, so it’s seen in a similar vein as the pixie cut was in the 90s.
I have pretty much this hairstyle, but how it manages with ethnic hair, and no one gives me any flack about it or thought I was a lesbian.
Why is this weird? I think it’s very pretty.
Other comments beyond the “y’all are already questioning if this is a thing so let me step in since my religious abuse was purely self-inflicted shit I’m not sure where I internalized and so I’m otherwise distanced enough to say: Yes, this is indeed A Thing” step in: Hank, if you end up Actually Saying Something this time, my opinion of you might actually rise. Hopefully this is actually opening your eyes a bit to this stuff too? Just a touch? (Because dammit if there is any potential for Jocelyne’s coming out to be less traumatic I want it to be.)
Carol… hoo boy. Willis, I know you’ve talked a bit about how you’re not really in contact with your mom anymore and I have all the sympathy for you, and if this kind of casual-but-blaring warning sign is autobiographical too, here’s another helping dollop of it. Either way, that is just. Such a thing, given the week they’ve been through.
Everything else: Even separated from the religious context, still way too familiar to me for comfort. Augh, it’s always so awful.
Seriously! And he captures it so painfully well. Right up to the casual dismissal of genuine awfulness by one’s community and family as if nearly getting killed or getting threatened with reparative therapy was normal.
YES! YES!
(Also, the sparkles loaded before the rest of the image and now I’m wondering what kind of Goku Uniforms the cast would wear if they attended Honnouji Academy.)
I’m gonna have to assume you meant 2.6, because considering the Kinsey scale goes from 0 to 6, a 26 must be some sort of post-critical mass black hole of gayness.
its honestly so comforting to see joyces dad opening up his worldview as its challenged instead of digging in his heels especially when i know my own dad would never
Well, obviously. It’s simple. They have to dismiss gunman and the gay girl, but the gay girl is here and the gunman did the “right” thing according to the faith, so cry some crocodile tears about how you clearly didn’t mean for anyone to do that, but at least he’s repentant in prison and his soul is saved from the momentary madness his daughter’s betrayal caused.
But the gay girl? She’s still claiming to be gay, meaning she is still openly sinning. And in church too. It’s just not right.
Bob damn do I wish I didn’t have as much personal experience with shitheads like this than I do.
The joy of sects. How ‘forgiving’ Xians can be so petty and judgemental never fails to amuse me. WWJD? He’d probably throw you out of the temple with the moneylenders.
It might amuse me how your own remark is very judgemental also.
I have had personal experience with the petty and judgemental actions of a lot of churches/religions not just Christian. But they are at the top of the list.
The least prejudiced may be mine (of course 🙂 ): I’m Wicca.
Can I vote for Unitarian Universalists as “least-prejudiced religion”? All the ones I’ve ever met have been incredibly laid-back people, and most seem to summarize their basic religious views as “don’t be an asshole, and also help the planet, and maybe be actually actively helpful instead of passively not a jerk” [quote from a UU friend of mine, but edited to remove some of the vulgarities].
I grew up in a UU church and it was really more about the community and upholding ideals than religion. In RE (Religious Education) we mostly discussed the histories of various religions, youth group activities, trying to uphold good ideals and identify harmful ideals, etc. And I do mean discussion, we had a leader but they would keep us on track instead of preaching at us. The church itself held weekly and monthly meetings for different LGBTQ groups. I was never into the whole God thing past age 6 and I was never called names or told I didn’t belong there, only that I was a valued member of the community (wish I could say the same for outside of church). I mean, not much point in arguing what religion is better, but I feel I gotta stump for the people who gave me a needed positive output in my childhood.
I don’t know if it was the same for every church, but I still remember the song used to usher the children to their respective RE groups: Go now in peace, go now in peace. May the spirit of love surround you, everywhere, everywhere you may go.
A Wiccan girl I used to date is the fiercest bigot I’ve ever met. She couldn’t so much as walk past a church without making suggestions of desecrating or razing it, because she had a grudge against some Christians who’d screwed over her education in the pursuit of ‘punishing a heathen.’
I think that’s a thing that Willis has been pretty good at showing in this arc. Becky is obviously the one who has experienced the most grief in this situation, but it has affected everyone in different ways.
I remember back when Becky first showed up, people were upset at her for prioritizing getting a haircut above everything else — even food and clothes.
I’m starting to understand it more now. These people use long hair as a symbol of female submission to the teachings of their church. To cut off her hair was an extreme act of defiance. It was Becky’s way of saying she wasn’t going to hide anymore.
Yup, it was her finally being herself and it was a powerful act of defiance and pride. Her being comfortable and “more Becky” and splitting once and for all with the cage of how she was “supposed ta” end up.
It was incredibly emotionally necessary, though even if it was just a luxury, a luxury was something she needed in that moment too. Something to counter all the awful happening all at once.
With all this bigotry behind closed doors, I feel like we’re all forgetting the REAL problem: the ground squirrels ARE coming back. They’re not afraid of the dog anymore. They’re coming for our blood. And our acorns, but that’s beside the point.
Wait, they’re not called “fuckin’ chippies” or “damn chippies” in Indiana? O.o That state is weird, man. XP (J/K, for those who didn’t pick up on it. XP)
Panel 1: It’s been mentioned before, but holy fucking shit is Carol just awful. Like, she’s hateful and bigoted and prioritizes her faith over people, but right here she reveals that she’s taken literally nothing out of this affair other than her daughter’s “immorality” in choosing a lesbian over her God.
Like, the shooting might as well have never occurred for her. Literally doesn’t register for her. She doesn’t think, huh, my daughter’s just been threatened with a gun by her best friend’s dad, maybe I shouldn’t make jokes about my husband owning a gun and casually using it about the home. Because in her mind, the shooting was just a backdrop for the real tale of how Joyce sassed back to her mother and how wrong that was.
It’s just so twisted of a morality and it’s even worse to know that her bits are the most autobiographical in the whole comic. *All the hugs for Willis* for growing up with that.
Panel 2: “better here than somewhere else”. Yes, that is the conundrum for the bigots isn’t it. They can’t abide her here, because by existing here she undoes so much of their intentional dehumanization of the gays in their eyes and thus is an “affront”. But they’re still supposed to be in the business of saving souls and so they wouldn’t want at least to be seen hoping they’d be somewhere else losing their eternal souls to Satan.
And that pregnant pause, so they can both imagine the depths of sin that the dirty lesbian gets up to.
And that second line about “saying something”, cause of course, you would never turn them out, not ever, just maybe, let them know that this isn’t the best place for them and make sure they understand that they really shouldn’t be coming back here where they can confuse their ironclad morals with their nasty existing. And of course both voices see them as a they.
At best they see them as a couple. At worst, the simple act of supporting a queer person is seen as as big a sin as being gay. Both would be awful.
Panel 3: And that’s the rhythm of it isn’t it? They have to excuse it. Because by their scripture, he did everything right. He did what they should do if they truly believed the rhetoric they spill out about the gays. And so they can’t truly condemn it, because this is the blood that makes the machine crush on and lets all the young’uns thinking about “going gay” know that they should think twice and instead just be the nice little props they need to be.
So, it is a given that they were always going to excuse it, but it’s also a monstrous thing to support openly, so this thin veneer is placed over it. And the “they were shoving it in my face” is a tried and true justification from way back.
Hell, it was even the justification the Orlando shooter’s father gave for why he did it. Even though he sought it out and staked out the club for weeks. Still it was “shoved in his face” and just “enraged him so”.
And it’s what makes this whole section just cut like a knife, because we all know that if we ever face violence, this is the type of shit some community somewhere will spout to justify it. It’s what I heard from my parents when I told them about nearly getting killed for being trans. And it’s disgusting.
Panel 5: This has been ripped to shreds, but “politics” is such a neat little package for the lives of the marginalized. The very lives of the marginalized and hated are “political” and controversial, and so must be banned from the airwaves and banned from speaking on their behalf, because none should be seen “choosing one side over the other” in a “political debate”.
Sure one side just wants to exist and the other wants to eliminate them one way or another, but they’re sides nonetheless and only one is really “political” when you think about it, after all, we’d have no problem with it if they weren’t trying to make everything so political all the time and attacking our religious right to despise them.
Panel 6: There are not enough cold showers for how many levels this is disgusting on. The creepy reference to an underaged version of Becky as “beautiful”. The lament that she has somehow lost that “beauty” simply because she didn’t grow up as they would demand. The treatment of their ability to tune out her existence as trumping that of Becky’s right to exist. The way it ties into toxic ideas of femininity and the expectation of young women to simply be attractive pieces of decoration to eventually win a husband.
Just on every level, it drips with the banality of evil like every ounce of this gossip. This is how the church folks gossip about one of their own nearly murdering two young girls.
And Hank seems to have just been hit with that and finally realizes how fucked up the casualness has truly been.
He may yet disappoint me as he’s got a large hole of trained bias he’s been raised in, but I think the fire in his belly has been stoked and he’s going to be a lot less willing to accept the bullshit willingly than he might have a night or two ago.
That’s really the heart of it that you point out, that under this awefullness, these snide remarks, this distancing from Becky and “her kind” is A MAN WHO HUNTED HIS CHILD WITH A GUN.
ONE OF THEIR OWN.
ONE WHO FOLLOWED THEIR OWN DOCTRINE
AND THEY CAN’T BRING THEMSELVES TO CONDEMN IT.
They don’t even say. “You know, gays are really bad but let’s agree that you shouldn’t hunt children with guns, OK.” They have to go the opposite way and say “hunting children is bad and all, but you know, gaaaaaay.”. Way to prioritize.
That last panel is definitely *the worst*. So much about women in this society is that they’re only valuable due to outside appreciation, and then they have the nerve to hold that approval over her head like this. Fuck that.
The worst thing about being lesbian for them, since it doesn’t have so much of the ick factor of being mxm gay (they probably appreciate lesbo porn if they appreciate porn at all), is that it removes a woman from the pool that the local guys get to choose from. That’s part of what they mean by that remark. She’s not trying to appeal to them anymore, and that’s a damn shame to them. She’s no longer their collective property, because she’s freed from having to be what they’re attracted to, as a defining part of who she is. And so they hide behind a door and bellyache about it. Fuck that.
There’s several more layers of fuck that, but those two were the strongest for me.
“It’s what I heard from my parents when I told them about nearly getting killed for being trans.”
Just, wow. That’s every kind of awful. I’m sorry you had to go through that.
Hank: “EFF YOU MOTHEREFFER.”
Joyce: “You are new to this, dad, let me show you how it is done.” *deep breath*
Next panel. Church is burnt down, everyone wanders around with shell shocked expression.
Hank: “where have you learnt that language, young woman?”
No. It really isn’t. If she was getting married at 18, and was in makeup and a dress and the whole thing, would it be creepy to say she’s beautiful? I think everyone is attributing creepiness to it because Carol is horrible.
I find it creepy too, and it’s not at all because of Carol because the only thing she said in this strip is that her husband should get a gun. Someone else in the congregation is talking about how beautiful Becky the minor with long hair was.
welp, yes. I think it is. 1) because it implies ownership of her beauty. Becky is someone to consume/be consumed by this person, based on how well she conforms to gender roles. 2) owning herself, unconforming to gender roles, makes her less beautiful in the eye of this beholder. 3) it’s a ranking of her value to this beholder. she’s seen as disfigured because she did something as silly as cut her own hair. god, i wonder how much more disfigured she would be if her dad had accidentally shot off her ear or something.
like beauty as a concept is inherently kind of creepy: it puts a predesignated value on the combination of certain characteristics in conjunction with each other when those combinations are determined by genetics and chance. it’s socially bound and changes. all you have to do is look at a tabloid about how this female celebrity is definitely pregnant because they gained a couple pounds, or how that female celebrity has a couple wrinkles and now deserves to be shunned from society.
or check out the Disney princess freeware games where someone with too much time on their hands decided to make Elsa pregnant or give Belle zits and warts so that you can do medical surgery and “fix” them. because, like, let’s be real here, Disney princesses are the ideal feminine standard in America. it’s not a coincidence that they started out with Snow White, fairest of them all, whose villain is a woman approaching middle age who hates her because she’s prettier. because society at large can and will boil down a woman’s worth to how pretty she is. not what she does with her life: just how well she conforms to their idea of what a woman ought to be.
Yep. Grown adults policing what a child looks like. Plus, from personal experience, they have probably never acknowledged her “beauty” until her haircut. (there’s a difference between saying “you look so pretty today, Becky” and having “beauty” be a trait associated with you)
Oh, and in case you missed the subtext, Hank – it could have been Joyce they talked about, if SHE had been the gay one. It WILL be Joyce they talk about if she does something suitably dramatic in defence of her friend.
Notice the constant use of the pronoun ‘they’. The unknown curtain-twitcher is definitely talking about Becky and Joyce. Maybe the current scuttlebutt is that Joyce is Becky’s lover or something. Because, from what everyone has been saying, that’s more or less how they’ve been acting around each-other for years!
This. And yeah, I think you’re right that the “consensus” is either that Joyce is Becky’s lover, because “there’s always been something about those girls” and “why would she defend her if she wasn’t that way too” or that simply being gay-supportive might as well be interchangeable or just as bad as being gay yourself.
Christ, no, church jagweed, Becky’s new haircut CAN GET IT.
It looks so amazing on her, and much more flattering than her old style.
Every lady I see rockin’ that cut looks sexy as fuck.
^ This. Even *I* looked sexy as fuck wearing it, and I am not sexy as fuck in any way, shape or form. LOL Even had a random dude yell “I love your haircut!” at the gas station. XD
I was raised in Bill Gothard’s ATI homeschooling curriculum (the same guy the Duggars worship). There were exceptionally detailed guidelines, with illustrations, relayed AS OFFICIAL DOGMA, regarding women’s hair. I tried to google the illustrated pages in question, but I couldn’t find them and it’s way past my bedtime, so screw it.
I’m not talking basic stuff, like “long hair is the glory of a woman”. No, I mean a creepy amount of detail. It should be styled this particular way, be this particular length, etc., etc.
It was one of those moments when Gothard was finally caught sexually abusing teenage girls, I looked back and thought… “Oh. Yeah. Seems really freaking obvious now.” He was so obsessed with the women in his cult looking just the way he liked them.
So yeah. Seeing non-conforming hairstyles as a sign of ungodliness is a totes real thing.
Okay, so I guess I guess I have to give up on this church being small-ish. I’ve never heard of any church having a book store that isn’t near megachurch levels.
On the plus side, this means people should be in less of a lockstep against them. On the down side, it means that this church is run the same way John runs his missions.
General rule of thumb: The more ostentatiously “welcoming” and “inclusive” a church tries to appear (big building, youth pastor, guitars at the service-in-the-round, web site and all that — the more unimaginatively and simplisticly judgmental its members are — often beyond the wildest dreams of the church “elders”. We get you in, we take your mind.
I think that you might be misunderstanding. Not ‘book store’ as in ‘retail establishment for selling books’, rather ‘book store’ as in ‘store room for books’. I doubt that it is much larger than a broom cupboard!
Many of the small churches I’ve experienced had some sort of “Library”, “Reading Room”, or “Book Store”. It’s often just a small collection of books kept in the office of the Minister.
But yeah, Becky goes to a MegaChurch. It’s the only possibility.
I know Joyce was home-schooled, but many churches have schools associated with them and in some cases share the same building or are otherwise attached. So I see this as your typical church and school combined, and the room is the “bookstore” for the school where the kids can get necessary supplies like their pens, pencils, spiral notebooks, filler paper, and Chick tracts.
it could be, like, somewhere between a megachurch and a small church. it’s small enough that Joyce and Becky know everybody, but big enough that there are six Jennifers plus four other kids around their age. that’s pretty rare for a small church, they don’t really invite a lot of young people.
anyways, that book store is not particularly inviting? like most of the ones i’ve seen had glass doors/walls so you could see the inventory from outside, or at least had the door open. i don’t imagine that they get a lot of traffic. or maybe they just don’t have the money to remodel.
Yeah they have >10 kids exactly the same educational year that Joyce wanted to see- and honestly this isn’t even thinking on kids their age they’re not excited to see at all. Could be a few more. Heck maybe that girl who kind of half disappears in the background and you keep forgetting about. The two boys who always kept to themselves and scowled at people until being elbowed by their mums. Who knows.
Honestly in the church I was brought up in you needed to group the three older years together to make 10 kids really from what I remember when I was one of them. It had def over 100 people I think in it? So with pure assumptions in my head I think this church has at least 300 people maybe. So maybe slightly bigger than most of the churches americans are in (most according to wikipedia attend those with less than 200 people). But nah not nec a mega church. For one thing while it was a minor picture shot zoomed close to the door: the church building doesn’t seem that big?
Even with two services- well some attend both, some only one. I’m thinking with both services counting everyone it’s /probably/ 400 tops for members or something like that. It depends on whether the Browns were a special case for attending both or not.
Like there’s schools with more people than that who know all the students at least by face and they’d have known this place their whole lives- hell they’re all homeschooled so this was all their non family community and only interactions with people outside the family home. So not really a mega church but still enough to be ‘mega uncomfortable’ when things take that turn for the worse. Even with several hundred people, if it’s the only people you know outside of blood relatives, you’ll get most of them down.
All those people Joyce and Becky probably considered being like aunts and uncles once….
My synagogue had a cabinet “book store” that had some religious explanation books/coloring books, and also things like Hanukkah candles, and other small Jewish paraphernalia that would be hard to find locally.
Same!!! I also agree with Falling Star, Mike would be a great addition here. I know Mike will be back eventually because preview panels on tumblr, and I’m excited!
You know, for people who probably think catholics are of the devil, the people behind the door are remarkable Pope-like:
“Well, the Hebdo attacks were terrible, sure, but, I mean, I totally understand them. I mean, those DRAWINGS!”
I’m also not a fan of the hair, but fuuuuuck, people, scale! When faced with haricuts you dislike, the correct response is to say “I don’t like it” if asked for an opinion, not gun-toting, though, to be fair, gun-toting seems to be the USAmerican response to pretty much everything.
I’d like every damn proselytiser to remember their complains about “shoving who they are in our faces” (which, full disclaimer, unless Becky actually starts kissing girls in church, that’s… not what she’s doing?), and keep your fucking religion to yourself. No, I’m not interested to hear about your fairy tales – also, if it’s from 2000 years ago, it’s not “news.” Learn what words mean.
I also think that church isn’t a place for politics, but not as much as I think that politics aren’t a place for religion. We’ve gotten rid of a pretty high volume of it over here (not all, but work in progress), and I’m sure every half-way decent USAmerican would like you to do the same over there, too. So, all those anti-abortion and anti-QUILTBAG (question: is this term frowned upon? I remember it from a couple of years ago, and, honestly, it’s pretty much the only way I can be sure to not forget any letters) laws? Kindly shove them up your asses.
Finally (this may be the longest post I’ve ever written here, made longer by this parentheses, so I’m gonna shut it now), I like how the speakers are not seen. Maybe it’s intentional, maybe it isn’t, but it gives me the idea that these are not individual people as much as they are congregation members, voices in the crowd that you can’t attribute to anyone but that are answered with yeahs and assents from the crowd, who then gets to go “well, it wasn’t ME that said it, I was just, y’know, generally there, *I’*m not a hateful bigot… but, y’know, they weren’t WRONG, not completely, y’know, they were just a bit rude about it, but y’know, it’s understandable…”
No. There isn’t. That’s the fucking point, and you (or, at least, the opinion you espouse) are part of the whole problem. Because you know what, besides drawings, also incites violent fanatics? EVERYTHING. And people like you keep saying, “yes, well, they were over the line in their reaction, but it’s not like it was UNJUSTIFIED.”
The Orlando shooting? Do you know how many people said “well, sure, it was over the line, but well, those people were like, kissing people of the same gender IN PUBLIC.”
The Planned Parenthood attacks? “Well, sure, dude shouldn’t have SHOT them, but they were like, MURDERING BABIES.”
99% of all rapes ever? “well, okay, MAYBE he shouldn’t have done that, but well, look at how she was DRESSED.”
And people like you keep making excuses for these fuckers. So, honestly, fuck you and people like you who keep saying “well, they did a bad thing but it wasn’t like they weren’t provoked” when MASS MURDER happens.
OK, so here is the thing about the Hebdo cartoons and the earlier, Danish Mohammed cartoons… Now, first of all, I’m -not- going to say that in itself, it was justified. That the cartoons were pretty racist is indisputable, but you still do -not- motherfucking respond with actual violence; if nothing else because it just makes people think the cartoons are correct.
BUT, there is something about this that people do tend to forget: Those cartoons did not happen in a vacuum. Racist cartoons like that has been going on before, and even in the late 90s, when the internet started to become a thing, and it did not turn into protests and shootings behind it.
But the thing is, these reactions did not happen simply because of a vacuum. It also happened because of USA essentially mass murdering people in the war of terror, including invading a country that -shitty dictator aside*- did not have anything to do with the actual terror attack, nor did it have any capability to actually strike USA with anything larger than a firecracker.
And yeah, strangely enough, quite a lot of people in the area felt like USA were putting its nose where it didn’t belong, for selfish reasons, under the rather dubious pretense of “giving freedom”. When your town is bombed for no apparent reason, I guess it feels less like “being set free” and more “join our way or die”.
In short, quite a lot people felt that USA was being a big mass-murdering bully that tried to eradicate their way of life. And now we come to the point: In this context, in this enviroment, is that really the best of time to put up some nice racist cartoons? I mean, really? Between the war, and the rhetorical speeches made in favour of the war (usually implying that God is on our side, dont’cha know?), said cartoons served to instill the feeling that the West was not just waging war on terrorists, it was a culture war seeking to eradicate anything non-Western. It was the straw to break the camel’s back, so to speak.
Still justified in attacking the cartoonists? OF COURSE NOT! I will not excuse them for that, ever. I just want to remind everyone of the wider context here, because that context is sort of important. After all, said wide context of those invasions pretty much also kickstarted ISIS into being.
* And funnily enough, Saddam was not particularly religiously shitty as a dictator (he managed to let different groups of religion live relatively stable together), more like “let’s kill and oppress the Kurds, and also people I don’t like” shitty. And oppressing the Kurds was a sentiment that he shared with Turkey’s government, but gods forbid the USA tell Turkey to stop that, what with them being “esteemed NATO members” and all…
Besides, before the US invasion, it was not unheard of for women in Iraq to seek out careers and study in universities. In fact, the US invasion pretty much made the country go backwards in that direction, as women suddenly were no longer to walk outside alone without a male family member accompanying her and other similar regressive shit.
Inciting a community? If you dont’ like something, you just say so, not murder people, and oh, I think they just tried to use it as an excuse because they where planning to murder people anyway.
To be fair, there’s a very good argument abortion and homosexuality are only “Christian issues” because of the political lobbyists who used them as “safe” ways of riling up their supporters while actually not giving two ****s about them in real life. Back in my fundamentalist days, I was involved in the Republican party and even my lowly staffer position showed me some genuinely 1984-esque stuff about mass manipulation of the public. Which, honestly, doesn’t make the churches any better but makes them gullible as well as hate-filled too.
To ACTUALLY be fair, that… doesn’t matter? Maybe it’s just me, but if someone’s kicking me, at that moment I don’t care if they’re doing it because they believe I deserve to be kicked or because someone told them I deserved to be kicked. I really just want the kicking to stop.
That is an interesting point. If the Bible is essentially the same kind of book as Aesop’s Fables, why is it that the Bible has so many followers and believers behind it and no one reads Aesop’s fables anymore except those who really knew about them before?
THAT’s an easy answer. The bible says that what really matters is how much you praise and believe in the sky daddy, and HERE’s how you do that, except for this OTHER part that says you do it in the exact opposite way, so, really, just pick whatever you want to do, because Jesus loves you anyway since you’re so much better than those OTHER people. Also, you can fuck up everyone along the way, just as long as you’re REALLY sorry about it when you’re about to die, because fuck being held accountable for your actions.
Also, there’s that whole part that, unlike the bible, Aesop’s were never really government enforced on pain of pain.
I can hardly breathe for what’s going to happen next. Joyce is going to ‘splode and that’ll be the moment the Earth opens up between Hank and Carol. Hank will rise… (Please!)
I still don’t see anything inherently wrong with Hank, unless he opts to NOT say something, but considering how angry he’s getting, I doubt that’ll be the case.
Seriously, maybe I’m missing a key factor but Hank’s been a fairly positive character, or a least one who seems the most “normal”.
life sucks. people suck. I suck. crap. This happens. It’s real. We’re in a century beginning with 2. And yet I think the human race is on a really slow path to “not sucking”. Is that too much to ask – just don’t suck. Tell, me, if I wait long enough, one at a time, one person at a time, will we get a little closer to a world without judgement? We all have to just stop putting our life outlook on others. The people in this church need to read that book they talk so much about. There’s a lot of good stuff in there! I keep 1 Cor. 16:14 in the back of my head and try to apply it to EVERYTHING. I fail at times though. It’s like I’m not perfect or something. But there’s people in the church that don’t seem to know that verse exists. How can that be? At least go with Luke 6:37. Ugh. Anyone got ice cream? I need some ice cream right now. I’ll share!
GO HANK GO. I’m hoping that Hank will turn out to be where Joyce gets her “details, sure, but the whole MISSION STATEMENT of Jesus is to love and care for your neighbors and NOT BE A DICK” attitude. I know a lot of people like that! They take a little while to come around, but during the adjustment period they’re polite and a little withdrawn while they work things through in their head, and then when they get their worldview re-oriented then they come back out and kick ass in the best of ways.
…of course, I also know a lot of people like Carol, who are great as long as you agree with them in all things, but if you don’t they will viciously bring all the stupid details to prove they’re “right” so you’ll repent and agree with them again, and of course it also serves to distract you from the fact that they’re going against the whole Jesus thing by being a wretched asshole.
Seriously betting that Joyce’s homeschool group is ATI-associated. The whole hair thing just REEKS of it.
Hank may go after the judgmental church ladies, but I’m willing to bet it’ll be because the girls have embarrassed him and not because he feels the need to defend them. Remember the incident with the car? He wasn’t upset that they stayed out, he didn’t bother to ask why, it was because he didn’t want to lose an argument. It was about “saving face” and the same applies around his church friends. The girls are irrelevant, all that counts is his image.
“So when you say ‘church shouldn’t be a place for politics’, and assuming for a moment that you abide by that yourself, and even that that’s possible when your definition of politics is as wide as it seems to be…what exactly is it that you want Becky to do to comply with this?”
“Well, she shouldn’t…you know…just look at her…”
“She’s wearing a long pink dress with pink shoes. Not sure how flattering it is, but it certainly meets standards of decorum and gender conformity.”
“But that hair.”
“Ah, so what you disapprove of is her haircut–something she can’t simply alter for church mornings, biology being what it is. So you don’t think she should come to church, then?”
“No, no, of course not!”
“Right, because you just said it was a good thing that she had come. But not with that haircut, because it’s political. So since she can’t just grow her hair longer every Sunday, it’s not simply a question of church: you want to dictate to an unrelated adult how she should wear her hair all the time. And, since you insist that her haircut is political, you want to dictate how she expresses her politics into the bargain. That seems like a lot of control you’re asking for.”
One more little note: “Who she is now”. Who she is NOW. Because of course, gayness is a choice and choosing to turn away from God and be a Lesbian Deviant makes you an entirely different person and yeah you know what no I just can’t deal with this one anymore, augh.
That way of viewing queerness is so brutally common it hurts.
I still remember my family lamenting how much I changed and how hard it was to adapt to “all the changes” when I came out to them while I was just sitting there with the same interests and personality I’d always had and them acting like I was some stranger that up and sucked away their beautiful son forever in order to steal his life.
Like, this weird idea that being queer in some fashion is some replacement you just because they had this weird fantasy of a person as cis and/or straight is one of the weirdest queer experiences to explain to others.
Like, how do you even begin with you just doing you, but with slightly less fear and depression and hearing unending lamentations about “who you are now” and all the things you “used to be”? That Hank is recognizing it as messed up is a really good positive sign for him being able to start breaking with the awful he’s been stewing in for years.
I mean like, I should be used to it, because I deal with the constant background radiation of “autism is an epidemic stealing our children and we need to take them back” and the related “Your child is not an actual human being with wants and needs and personality of their own, but instead a doll you can project whatever traits you want on them” but it’s still so gritting to see it laid out like that in this specific way.
All the *hugs* back. For all the issues I’ve had with life I can at least say my family hasn’t had that kind of fantasy person for over a decade and got over themselves fast and out of my awareness at the time. Gotta suck harder than anything when you have to see them pointedly Not Adjust.
If it’ any consolation, my parents act the same way toward me, and I’m cis, straight, graduated from college, married, and have kids.
Somehow in the process of growing up, I became this person they hate, and they waste no opportunity to tell me so.
It sucks.
A few times in my life I tried to go with my friends to “Christian ” church, but as well meaning and friendly the group would be something would be said or done and it would turn me right off. As a Catholic I like some aspects of my religion, but again I can’t get behind some of the stances the church takes. Some people told me I couldn’t pick and choose what to believe in a religion and I say that’s bullshit people do that anyway.
“She should cover her hair when she comes to church, for our benefit. It’s technically against the Bible but it would make me more comfortable.”
“No, she should have grown it out and left it permanently long! I know she doesn’t like it and we don’t even have to see her most of the time, but she should do it for us because we love her and want to see the best in her :))”
‘he should get a gun’ oh thanks Carol. I think that would be a bad idea.
RIGHT, because threatening to shoot one’s own daughter (and actually intending to go through with it if necessary) is TOTALLY equivalent to cutting one’s hair shorter.
I’ve had long hair most of my life. About 8 years ago I went from near waist length hair to just long enough to spike. I kept it that way for a few years, much to the dismay of my family. They all pretty much hated it, and I got a bunch of flack from my co-workers for a while too.
It’s back to near waist length again, for the moment…
I had to come back and say this because I’ve been thinking about this strip all day. It hits home harder than I thought it would since I basically gave up going to church because I knew I wouldn’t be able to deal with this, knowing how much church was like. My grandmother always questioned me as to why I stopped going and I always told her that I don’t feel comfortable there nor do I share the exact same beliefs anymore, so I’m not going to put myself or them in that position out of respect for myself.
My grandmother, who loves me very much and while I have never told her of my sexuality preferences, probably knows that I’m not straight – still has problems with “gay marriage” and has told me that she has no problem with people having the same rights “but it should be called something else.”
I wish I had been stronger to fight her on it but I just walked away knowing that I’ll have to either make the decision to invite her to my wedding with my girlfriend or not.
I only bring it up here because this is the type of behavior and talk that terrifies me, especially from people who you thought were people you could trust to respect you as you respect them.
As I said before, I really hope that Hank does the right thing.
Thank you to all of you. I’m always glad to see people open to these discussions and while I know a comment section isn’t the best place to talk about these things, but I find myself more comfortable talking with others here because these things need to be discussed. I’m glad the comic is out here, urging these sorts of discussions to come up where they might otherwise not. 🙂
See I really like the facial expressions. It really conveys the change of feelings from “What?” to “No. Please don’t tell me the people here are like that…Please don’t tell me my friends are horrible people” to “Please tell me I wasn’t like these people.” to finally “I no longer want anything to do with these fucks.”
Just let us take him away from his toxic environment for a little while longer and give him positive reinforcement lessons on how to really be a properly good dad (I think he is going in the right direction, but there will probably be more relapses coming up), then yes.
And if that doesn’t work, I’ll share my dad with you. As long as you’re happy with having to go to Norway to meet him.
I really hope the anger on his face is anger at what they are saying and not out of some feeling of personal embarrassment that he will blame on Becky in a future strip.
You know (he said, knowing that very few people will read the comments section of this strip at this point), something did occur to me about Hank’s anger in the last panel.
I think that Hank is not only angry at the two unseen talkers there, but also angry at himself. Remember when he first saw Becky with her new haircut? Sure, he still welcomed her, but he also made a negative comment to Joyce about the hair.
True, nowhere near as horrible a comment as these people, but still, he did not expect it to look like that, and his initial reaction was (despite how he tried to deflect it by saying Carol was going to be shocked about it) that he did not like it, because it was not how a girl’s hair is supposed to look.
The only thing was, he did not realise this back then. He just knew it was somehow “wrong”, but he could not articulate why. Today, he finds out why. It is because of his church’s oppressive culture. It is because he has been taught that women are supposed to look like they are there to please the men they will eventually marry rather than pleasing themselves.
And as he realises this, he gets angry at himself because he was thinking the same thing! He was not saying it, but he was still somehow thinking it. And now he seems to be realising that this is the wrong way of thinking. That Becky is first and foremost Becky, a grown-up human being that is his daughter’s best friend, and which should be allowed to make her own decisions on how her hair looks without people being so goddamn judgemental about it, that it somehow justifies the whole assault and kidnapping.
I really, really want to like Joyce’s dad. Out of the non-teacher adults shown so far he’s probably my favorite. Just every once in a while he says or does something that makes me uneasy. Still, it’s good to see that he cares about both his daughter and Becky.
Loading ...
What would Snoop do with a gun?
(besides shoot one of his owners with it)
Damn Becky flaunting the fact that she’s a human being with human characteristics!
that’d better not be a “damn STRAIGHT she used to be beautiful!” face, or I’ll get MY guns
*curls biceps*
Obviously it’s not stated who’s speaking, but I’m now picturing a creepy old guy (the pastor, perhaps?) commenting on how beautiful this girl used to be…
I immediately jumped to the worst case scenario and pictured the youth pastor guy from yesterday’s strip.
For some reason I am assuming that it is a woman speaking.
She still is, but she also used to be.
The canine uprising is inevitable.
Yeah, Rick and Morty already covered that.
And Jerry proved that peeing on all our stuff to mark it doesn’t work.
Don’t you know? Talking about revolution sounds like a mutt-er.
Drop the gun and put your paws in the air, Jimmy, here, has a leash and we’re just going to clip it onto your collar nice and slow.
Plant it as evidence for a crime?
Argh, that link makes me so angry… I don’t care what kind of tool you’re using, learning AND FOLLOWING basic safety protocols is IMPORTANT. And shit like this continually pops up as evidence that people are way too gorram casual with tools.
First bloody rule of firearms, never leave them loaded and always treat them as if they’re loaded anyway.
I had a long long conversation with someone who claimed to be a responsible gun owner but also always keeps his guns, plural, loaded, in an unlocked cabinet by his bed.
He was SO CONFUSED that I thought this was somehow unsafe. He insisted he sometimes locked the cabinet when “younger” family members came over, and scoffed at the idea that the NRA’s basic guidelines were good enough, but had NO RESPONSE when I pointed out that he and the NRA had all the same rules, he just had FEWER of them.
Some “responsible” gun owners are terrifying.
(My stepdad was an actual responsible gun owner, who kept his gun unloaded in a closet with multiple locks. I have no patience for people who do less.)
If your guns are for hunting or plinking at targets, that makes sense.
No, it makes sense if you are a responsible gun owner, but thanks for playing!
A loaded gun in a bedside table that is not locked. Is a self defense choice. With that mindset, having it completely unloaded, and locked away removes its effectiveness to it’s purpose. Scenario, home invader, possibly armed, obviously a danger. You woke up because something breaking when they entered.
Depending on your stance; You a gun owner with home defense in mind and have the firearm in the bedside table. Your now armed and ready to defend.
Your a “responsible” gun owner who keeps all their guns locked up and away from everyone. Unless that lockup is in your room and you can get into it quietly, and swiftly, as well as load it ect, your in a situation where your firearm to defend the house is out of reach, such as a gunsafe in the garage ect.
It really comes down to the reason you have the firearm. Seriously, I don’t think a such thing as a “responsible” anything exists, because one fuck up and that view changes, difference of opinion changes it as well. There’s no winning argument for any side of the debate.
That’s pretty much my take on “responsible gun owners”. They’re all responsible until they aren’t and get caught at it.
Beyond that, unless you have some particular reason to expect an attack – You’re living in a war zone, been threatened with murder, etc, etc, you really are putting yourself more at risk by keeping a gun in that “home defense” fashion.
Unforgivably so if there are young children in the house.
I agree. What irritates me most is that the US is dangerous enough that these types of personal policies are warranted. In so many other places, guns inspire fear, not courage. In the US though, everybody knows it makes people brave enough to do crazy, dangerous things, and having a gun thus becomes safer depending on the circumstance. And yet carrying a gun around day to day as a regular personal possession is spreading the idea that this should be a norm that continues.
They’ve locked themselves in a situation that looks a little bit like this: “Because there are so many dangerous fucks with so many guns out there, I’ve got to be a dangerous fuck with a gun to survive. Otherwise I’m an idiot. Trying to suppress gun usage is therefore stupid a bad thing.” So then everybody has that ideology, so the guns increase in number, and people wielding guns increases, and people who consider it regular increases.
It’s a nasty downward spiral to a dangerous world. It’s a shame that along with a right to self-defense comes the right to permanently maim someone or end their life. It’s a wonderful country but I am glad that I don’t live there. 🙁
Is this how mad max starts?
Except it’s not really. It’s not that dangerous. That’s the image they spread, but it’s really nonsense.
Horrible shit happens, but it’s rare. Especially in the places where people are most likely to think they need guns for protection. And most of the real dangers aren’t the kind that you’re likely to protect yourself from with a gun.
Under most circumstances, guns really put you more at risk. Both from suicide & accidents, but also from doing something dumb that gets you killed if you ever do get robbed or something like that.
I’ve lived in the US my whole life, not all of it in the best areas and I’ve never once felt the need to be armed for my own protection. As someone said above the percentage of people who own guns has been dropping for decades, they’ve just been buying bigger and bigger arsenals.
I was shaping my comment to my expected audience. I wanted to not get barked at by pro-gun dudes barraging me with insults because it has happened. So, I decided to engineer my comment and pretend to see rationality in their views… Simply to avoid conflict. It looks more objective and less of an attack this way.
Oh, you actually thinks that the USA is a really dangerous place to live.
That’s almost cute.
No, really. I live in Brazil, and compared to some regions of my country, specially the northwest, the USA is a friggin’ utopia. While you get mass shootings, we have daily executions due to drug debt. While you have armed robbers, we have open warfare between natives and farmers in the Amazonic Rainforest. We have a fucking civil war in all but name between the police and drug dealers that has lasted a few decades up to now, and then a corrupt part of the police started a militia and is blackmailing people right now.
You don’t get to say that you live in such a really dangerous place that everyone should get a gun unless you have stumbled onto a dead corpse in the middle of the street and you first reaction was “oh, crap, not again. I wonder if this time it was the drug traffic or militia”. Because that is a thing.
And our worst isn’t even close to, say, Africa’s worst.
I try my best to assume rational thought from people because that’s how I process thoughts. In other words I’m trying to justify the US because of the sheer, massive amount of people who have defended the possession of firearms from that country.
Now, regardless of the fact that I was engineering my comment based on past experience, your view isn’t something I agree with. That view that if someone hasn’t faced the pain you have, then those people’s opinions are somehow of lesser value, their complaints carry less power… Empathy and understanding are the abilities of a person to comprehend things that happen to others. Don’t go around and complain about your more massive problems just because people are going around the internet talking about things they observe (which by the way is perfectly normal).
I’m not complaining about my more massive problem, I’m just stating that the notion of violence in the USA being so big of a problem as to warrant everyone needing a gun is ludicrous, to say the least. Not because you problems aren’t important enough, but violence in the USA is almost a non-issue compared to half of the countries in the world, and yet not one has so many guns.
Precisely. It IS ludicrous. Znayx was explaining the “logic” behind USAians who feel the need to have gun(s) in their day-to-day life.
^Thank you pencildragon 🙂
You’re really not. That’s simply untrue.
That’s like saying that unless you live in a flood plain or in an earthquake zone, or tornado alley, you shouldn’t have home owner’s insurance. Or that you shouldn’t have health insurance because you’ve never been sick before.
The whole fallacy about a gun being more dangerous to you than to a bad guy is just that, a fallacy. It’s based on a poorly worded study that essentially misconstrued the source of shootings, and completely ignored any use of a gun that didn’t end in a shooting. Anecdotal, but I personally have 2 friends who have related stories to me of stopping (at the least) an assault by simply brandishing their weapon. I have another friend who was tied to a chair, and thankfully not harmed, by home intruders. He wasn’t armed, and he didn’t live in a war zone.
Bad things happen to good people. It’s up to us to make sure that we’re able to defend ourselves.
It’s also incumbent upon anyone owning a gun to be safe and responsible with it. The gun should be under your control at all times that it’s not locked away. You need to practice with it, and take the rules of shooting to heart. You need to respect the fact that you’re handing something that can potentially harm or kill someone else, and you need to make sure your kids know the safety rules of a gun. It’s critical that these conditions (and I’m certain there are a lot more that I skipped in the writing of this) are kept to faithfully.
The good news is, despite the media coverage, we’re actually at a low in terms of shooting. Liberalization of gun laws (and by that, I mean loosening) has resulted in us experiencing the lowest homicide rates since the 60s. And we’re still trending down. That doesn’t make the idiots who go on these rampages disappear, and it doesn’t make their actions all right. But it does put a little perspective on things.
*You’re
**etc.
And yeah, what thejeff said. Unless you’re in a warzone or otherwise have legitimate reason to fear for your life, statistically, you’re shooting yourself in the foot (lol) by keeping a gun that way.
It’s pretty easy to keep a full magazine next to a pistol or what have you in case of emergency. At very least don’t leave a round chambered – for that matter, the distinctive sound of a pump-action shotgun chambering a round is pretty discouraging to any intruder.
I’ve often thought of just using a recording of that noise as my home-defense item.
My great-grandfather kept a loaded pistol and pepper spray under his pillow. Then laid my five year old self down for a nap on that pillow. Luckily, it was the pepper spray I found and sprayed all over. The ER trip for that had a way better outcome than it could have. My mom was so pissed at him.
I remember helping a friend move. His gun save was being carried upstairs. I made an offhand joke about dropping the safe and one going off. He got dead serious, and commented that they were unloaded.
This guy is laid back and not serious about *anything.* Except guns. I really respect that.
Four out of ten dog shooting man cases happened in Florida. Why am I not surprised?
Please don’t be a dick about my home state. It’s not any weirder than anywhere else, we just have different laws about local news stories being published nationally.
Do research. Don’t be shitty to an entire state.
You have a point. The Mayor of Miami is prepping for climate change. He’s deffo got his head screwed on the right way.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/miami-beach-global-warming
Miami Beach, it’s basically a barrier island off the coast just east of Miami.
You mean Florida doesn’t necessarily have more crazies than anywhere else, but it is more willing to broadcast the crazies for everyone’s entertainment?
Never let it be said we couldn’t take one for the team.
Thanks for explaining this! I have for years thought it was biz are that Florida always seemed to have more than its fair share of wackadoos trying to buy pot from cops in a patrol car and other hijinks. I’m glad to know it’s basically a sampling error!
He would pop it like its hot
Everybody in the internet keeps reminding me about The Plague Dogs!
Eyebrow lockdown!
Forehead lines aligned and engaged!
Initiating scowl!
Piercing stare torpedoes ready for launch!
Now Doctor, just because you now have attack eyebrows, you need to be careful with them.
Mega Thrusters are Go?
Orion Fury, Stay On Target…
Uh-oh! Hank’s Hulking up!
wow people off screen way to go sinning in church, isn’t there thing about being a gossip in the bible? – this is rhetorical I know there is, I just want be a bit checky sometimes
As a FORMER catholic, I’m very certain there was a ‘Thou shalt not judge’…or something to that effect, I dunno…
I was a pretty crappy catholic…
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone…
*Jesus picks up a rock*
*rock sails through the air*
“Dangit, Mom, I was trying to make a point here!”
From a Catholic POV, Jesus wasn’t “without sin”. He smashed up the tax collectors tables in a fit of rage. He had a moment of weakness where he asked God if he had to die. The only person who had no sin was Mary. I dunno if that’s true for the other parts of Christianity, though.
Wait, I’m catholic, too, but that’s the first time that I heard anything about Jesus being a sinner. I mean, sure, Mary is immaculate and queen of heavens and all that jazz, but she’s hardly better than God.
As a former Catholic seminarian, nope. Jesus was without sin. That means that getting angry or having doubts aren’t sins. (If Jesus did sin then you have the problem of God sinning.)
Sins are actions that offend God. I’m pretty sure the point of smashing the shops at the temple was that they offended God.
Most Protestant denominations don’t venerate Mary or consider her sinless. Evangelicals and Charismatics see her as a normal woman who just happened to get a one time “special mission from God” but who was otherwise un-miraculous. They also believe that after one Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth she had a few Joseph-assisted conceptions and non-virgin births.
If she was on a “special mission from god” how come she wasn’t driving a car through a shopping mall?
At night with sunglasses.
It’s 106 mille passus to Bethlehem.
We’ve got 10 shekels of frankincense,
Half a litra of myrrh
We’re following a supernova.
And we’re riding camels.
Hit it.
The Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary herself was free from original sin, being kept in a sort of sin-free bubble by God so Jesus would have a clean place to come from. Protestants generally don’t believe in it.
Yeah, that is just…no. Official Catholic Dogma is that if Jesus had sinned even in the slightest way, his death wouldn’t have meant diddly squat because he wouldn’t be a perfect sacrifice.
Whatever priest taught you this is out of their got-dang mind.
“Eh, the bible says a lotta things. Shove her!”
And it’s notoriously fuzzy about kneecaps.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged in kind.”
Possibly not actual Catholic dogma, but close enough to the ideal that I’ve added it to my personal dogma.
All I know, as a guy who was raised outside of this whole religion business, is “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Followed buy a huge boulder being thrown over the crowd and Jesus shouting “MOM!” Though I think that second bit is blasphemy. Hilarious blasphemy.
Ack, ninja’d.
There’s also “judge not, lest ye be judged,” but I couldn’t tell you book/chapter/verse/etc. Proverbs maybe? Heck, maybe it’s not even from the bible.
Matthew 7:1 according to Google. (As a Weddingandfuneralist, I only heard it from that episode of Psych that parodied Twin Peaks.)
Looks like Hank’s getting ready to invoke Austin 3:16.
oh it’s biblical. Matthew 7: 1-3
Honestly, I’m not sure why more has not been made of the “let he who is without sin” part being an addon to the Bible. It honestly seems like a thing people want to ignore.
Tried Google and it looks like it’s mostly regarding slander/bearing false witness rather than holding stupid opinions. Ah, Titus 3 – “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.”
“Politics” or “Hank learns some humility.
Hank smash!
Return of Cool Dad?
Cool Dad 2: Dad Harder
So what next?
Cool Dad 3: In Space
Cool Dad 4: the Wrath of Mom
Cool Dad Returns
Rise of the Coolness of the Dad
My god, these are great. You guys are clever.
Here is my contribution.
The Prequels-
Cool Dad I: The Phantom Bigot
Cool Dad II: Attack of the Church
Cool Dad III: Revenge of the Kids
The Original Trilogy-
Cool Dad IV: A New Hope
Cool Dad V: The Family Strikes Back
Cool Dad VI: Return of the Father
The Sequels-
Cool Dad VII: Divorce Awakens
seewhatididthere
Cool Dad Into Darkness
Divorce Awakens is amazing omg
Dad 2: Electric Boogaloo?
Cool Dad Saves the Kids. *Runs*
Aaaaand it starts.
Hank, you’re up, don’t disappoint me here.
I feel the need to comment…
Taking a vocal stand, knowing that it will probably cut you off from your church, your community, your friends, and probably your wife and half your kids…is really freaking hard.
I mean, I want Hank to stand up. I’ll be disappointed if he doesn’t, but it’ll be an understanding disappointed.
I think (hope) that we’re about to see where Joyce gets her well-intentioned righteous fury from, not just the blue eyes. Go Hank!
Carol getting swallowed up by a sinkhole can’t happen soon enough.
I mean, that’s not Carol speaking, if you consider the direction of the text box. Unless that’s just sort of a general statement.
I am NOT observant. I missed her standing there, saw her in the tags, and so assumed the off-panel voice was her. And I skipped making that sinkhole comment and comics where she actually did stuff.
No, it’s definitely Carol. It would be pointing at Mustache Guy if it were him talking. It makes sense for Carol to interject here, and she’s all the more repugnant for it.
But I’m pretty sure there’s no interjection occurring. It seems more like Hank is hearing either passers-by or standers-about talking. Casually eavesdropping, if you will.
The first panel shows some talking that’s not intelligible, probably indicating that Hank isn’t really listening to it because he’s involved in a conversation. This unintelligible-to-Hank (and us) talking is coming from the general direction to the bookstore, not Carol. In the next three panels, Hank is now aware of what the talkers in or near the bookstore are saying.
TL;DR: it’s not Carol saying the horrible things this time. Though she’d totally agree with them.
The general direction OF the bookstore, not to.
There’s some confusion here between commenters.
In panel 1, Carol is saying “I keep telling him he needs a gun”, but that’s not the text Cattleprod was talking about. In panels 2-5, some unseen characters are badmouthing Becky off-panel.
They’re in the book store.
It’s not actually a book store; it’s the “Crook Whore”. It’s where they keep the bad people (as we can plainly hear).
Great comment!
Hank is listening to a seperate conversation from the background. The mumbly word baloon in the first panel coming from very definitely not Carol is supposed to lead us into understanding that.
The wavy balloon tail says it’s someone not talking directly to them, and probably being heard through the door of the book store.
1) *possibly
2) My kingdom for an “oh, someone else already said it, never mind” button
I read her as joking about the gun. I mean, really, a gun to control the squirrels?
… though it’s still pretty insensitive given what Becky and Joyce went through less than a week ago.
…I want to live somewhere where that reads as a joke. /lives in the American South
Tell me about it.
>.<
But the constitution can't be changed, and the second amendment guarantees the right to whatever kind of weaponry you want!
See also: reasons why English and Government classes are important.
Prohibition was repealed, tho
just needs some votes
(read: GET VOTIN’)
Wasn’t that the ONLY AMENDMENT to get repealed by state convention and popular vote?
I don’t think we’re getting the 2nd appealed that way.
I think the best strategy is a public information war to advertise the dangers of gun ownership to the family. Forget the legislative front for a bit (because it’s not going anywhere with this gridlock) and target the demand-side. Start hurting the gun companies financially, get fewer people wanting to own guns, and some of the political opposition to gun control will evaporate. Maybe enough to free up some legislation.
Fewer people are owning guns; the problem now is that the people who want to own guns own many guns and they don’t want the guvmint making it harder for them to get more guns.
I’m not against owning guns; I’ve certainly enjoyed my share of shooting fun. (On a range. With a trained instructor.) Also venison. I do think we need licenses – make sure everyone gets a license, which includes a background check, before they’re allowed to purchase a gun.
And with Peruta v. San Diego being decided recently, this is allowed under the Second Amendment, which does NOT guarantee the right for private citizens to own guns as individuals! I don’t know why this decision isn’t getting more attention!
I was going for a definition-eyeroll: “the second amendment is, by virtue of being an AMENDMENT (definition: a change or addition to a legal or statutory document) a change to the constitution”. Living in the American south most of the year, I hear a lot of people talking about the constitution, particularly that one bit of it, as if it were immutable and god-given, which… well, frankly, the reasoning I’ve heard most scares me. Best anti-gun argument I ever heard came from a gun seller who was trying to convince me (who was then slightly against but largely ambivalent about gun-related-everything, which is apparently an offensively anti-firearm stance in Alabama) why guns of any sort (he was particularly fond of automatic weapons) were inherently legal and necessary and people, especially good Christians, should have them.
“I hear a lot of people talking about the constitution, particularly that one bit of it, as if it were immutable and god-given, which… well, frankly, the reasoning I’ve heard most scares me.”
The thing is… the rest of the rights in the bill of rights are. No-one would disagree that freedom of speech or freedom of religion or protection from unlawful search and seizure, etc, is a basic human right and the constitution is simply doing the right thing by respecting it rather than being the source of it and that it would trivially go away if people decided to change it.
The pro-gun people simply believe that the right to gun ownership has a co-equal status to the rest… and they’re probably at least right about how the founders conceptualized it, since recognizing “god-given” inalienable rights rather than creating novel ones, was what the bill of rights was in general all about.
You can agree or disagree on whether the founders were right about it or not, but they did put it next to stuff like freedom of speech, trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishments, all of which are uncontroversially basic human rights. And the bill of rights is ten amendments, but it was written as a single document, and has the singular theme of recognizing things its authors regarded as inalienable rights. The inclusion of gun ownership alongside the others is not a mere coincidence. You can say they were wrong, but it’s disingenuous to say it’s not what they meant.
I disagree that gun ownership as it is framed now was regarded as an inalienable right by the founders. (Tbh, its more than a little ridiculous to act like “the founders” were a cohesive united groups with uniform ideas and goals…but such is the way we speak.) The Second Amendment could easily be argued to limit gun ownership as a fundamental right as intended to protect the ability to take part in a larger and more organized community force against government oppression re: a militia. Its not a very individualized amendment. Arguably the founders may have found personal protection to be a similarly worthy cause, but they framed the right to bear arms afforded by the Second Amendment in terms of a militia and personal protection wasn’t really the concern of the day. The parties who put the amendment forward were worried about the dangers of allowing the central gov. to maintain a standing military. To be glib, the idea that every Tom, Dick, and Harry must be able to individually run around with potentially military grade weaponry regardless of training or background, was the result of Supreme Court interpretation. An interpretation that both the Court and the country has been struggling with ever since.
The reasoning I’ve heard most is not “I want to hunt” or “I want to protect my family/property/business” or “I think guns are cool and want my collection to look impressive” but “if I want to put together a militia some day and march on Washington, no one has the right to stop me, especially not some lawmaker”. It’s people saying, in essence, “I want this killing tool to use on other humans”, and the people who say that are also often saying “these particular “types” of other humans aren’t supposed to exist”, and THAT is what scares me. When I hear an ardent speech in favor of automatic weapons from someone who says that, “peaceful coexistence [with other religions] is an attempt to subvert god’s will,” I don’t hear a patriot who values the law trying to uphold it, I hear a future tragedy in the making.
Context hasn’t really changed for the rest of the Bill of Rights. I mean, twenty dollars is a heck of a lot less now than it was then, but things like free speech, juries, warrants… the concepts haven’t changed too much, but weaponry is so much more absurdly advanced now than it was then -and the original document was written by a bunch of people fresh out of a war with the world’s most powerful navy that they had fought by use of a civilian militia. At that time, I can see firearms being essential. But… what need does anyone have for a fully automatic weapon in everyday civilian life? Someone with no military training or history?
How about, “If any American citizen can just up and buy guns under the Second Amendment, then that means that the PAGANS and HEATHENS and MUSLIMS can buy them, too! D: Also the abortionists and the gays.”
Quick! Make it harder to get guns! We all know the people who should have them either already have them or would be able to still get their hands on them, anyways.
Heh.
Mind you, it’s a complicated issue involving the place of the gun in American culture as well as the accessibility of them. A lot of Canadians have guns as well, but they’re still mainly a tool for rural areas, and you don’t see a lot of urbanites with them, any more than a lot of city dwellers have chain saws and ATVs, and for similar reasons (those being because they don’t really have a use for them unless they’re going hunting/fishing/camping and/or some other reason for heading into the bush).
Obama’s idea of not allowing people on the no-fly list to have guns is probably a good one, though, although I can’t see the NRA liking it one bit.
It would help a HELL of a lot, too, though, if more gun owners were responsible about how they were stored, handled, and used.
Actually, the Constitution *can* be changed. Hence the amendments. Prohibition was once part of the Constitution, before it got repealed. Congress just needs to pass the change, then a majority of States need to ratify it.
As for Carol, I was thinking she meant a shotgun or some other type of rifle that can shoot birdseed. (at least, I think that’s what the non-lethal stuff is they use) It’ll sting, and maybe convince the squirrels to go elsewhere.
It’s called birdshot, meaning, “shot for killing birds”. Contrast with buckshot (shot for killing bucks, ie deer), and bearshot, where you’re literally loaded for bear.
Birdshot USUALLY won’t kill a person, but it will do more then sting. It will embed dozens of tiny little metal pellets up to an inch into your flesh. AND it will kill a squirrel.
Actually at very close range (20 feet or less) all shotgun loads will act like a solid hunk of metal.
Birdseed or rock salt. Either one stings like a mofo.
Rock Salt! Yeah, that’s what I was thinking of! Thanks.
My cousin fires salt shot at stray cats and other pests getting into his property, and he says it *can* be fatal, depending on the distance and the chance of wounds getting infected. If it can kill cats, I wouldn’t bet on squirrels…
Rock salt especially, if you’re a ghost.
I think you’re giving Carol too much credit. She’s totally the type to buy into the notion that in order for Hank to ‘man up’, he’ll need to get a gun.
I believe the op was being sarcastic.
No the second amendment does not give us the right to ‘whatever’ weapons we want. Keep in mind that when it was written, the right to bear arms would’ve covered front loading muskets, mounted rifle sabers and knives. All of which killed people one at a time. (talking about self weapons here, not cannons).
Show me why an individual civilian needs a machine gun to kill a deer and maybe I could listen to NRA argument why civilians need them.
A 45 is more than enough for self defense. A shotgun or rifle(not a Kalnicknakoff or however it’s spelled).
In all honesty, if we are under attack, a machine gun isn’t going to do much against missels anyway.
I just do not understand how a room full of dead first graders, slaughtered by one man with his rightful weapon of defense, so fast that no one could stop him – did not result in the immediate refusal of sales of automatic weapons of all kinds to anyone, period. No augument.
Maybe if it had, we wouldn’t have a Night Club full of innocent people dead in he club in Orlando.
Adding an amendment to the Constitution limiting the sale of automatic weapons of any kind, along with bullet proof vests and the rest of the military gear to civilians would Not prevent us from arming ourselves.
Just from being walking one man death squads.
The 1986 National Firearms Act already forbids the building of full-auto weapons for sale civilians. Sales of full-auto weapons made and registered before 1986 are legal on some states, but very, VERY highly regulated (to the point that last year there were ZERO crimes committed with legally owned full-auto weapons, because registration and background checks work).
I fail to see how making ballistic armor (they aren’t really completely bullet proof) which is designed to protect people from firearms, would make us safer.
I want to note that I do not agree with the following. But if you’re going to talk gun control, this is the argument you need to ultimately address:
All the talk about hunting, home defense and even defending against invaders or terrorists is so much smoke-screen. The hardcore gun-nuts believe that the Second Amendment exists so that the people could theoretically rise up against a tyrannical government.
Some believe that such an uprising could actually succeed in overthrowing the government, but the more realistic ones believe (based on world history) that the real objective would be to make the country ungovernable. It doesn’t matter to them that guns can’t beat missiles, because that’s not what is supposed to happen. Rather, sporadic violence is supposed to be used to prevent the government from ever being able to feel like it can succeed at continuing to oppress the populace.
BTW, these people are also technically wrong about what the second amendment is for. Google “2nd Amendment Slave Militias” and you’ll see the real (and very disturbing) origins of the ‘militias’ that were actually being discussed.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/second_amendment_slave_control_not_the_aim/
OK, that didn’t wrap like I thought it would. The link above is an article written by an author of books on slavery, arguing that the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with slave militias, and that the original argument that it did was wrong on several fundamental points of history.
Your avatar makes this comment better.
The original amendments all had the purpose of limiting government. The right to bear arms is no exception. The intent was not to enable people to rise up against the government; that’s what votes were for. Rather the intent was that agents of the government would step lightly. The rationale about militias was the smoke screen to get it adopted. Oddly there has never been a tyranny with armed citizens. None of which prevents reasonable regulation of firearms. Differences of opinion in how much regulation is reasonable doesn’t make the other guy evil.
FYI, some friendly advice on the gun control issue … please don’t refer to magazine-fed semi-automatics as “machine guns”.
The reason is because this terminology is inaccurate, which will then be used as an excuse to be a pendant … and derail the conversation away from its intended point.
For example, true automatics have been banned since the 1930’s … as such, to stay on point, the conversation needs to be that Sandy Hook, Orland, Aurora (& others) were all perpetrated with a “mere” magazine fed semi-auto. Unfortunately, this is an example where one needs to be accurate in order to preempt a lame defense…
…and this all strongly parallels the storyline and what Becky’s about to be hit with.
Please. Everyone knows that you control ground squirrels by releasing predators like rattlesnakes. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
So what do we release to control the rattlesnakes?
Mongooses.
Mongooses? Naaah. Obviously you’d have to release trained gorillas!
*several extrapolations later*
“No, that’s the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.”
“Yes, BUT HOW DO WE CONTROL WINTER?”
“Carbon emissions.”
This reminded me of the book, “World War Z” where the zombies froze in the Winter, giving those of us in the Northern climes a respite from terror until the Spring thaw came about.
(I’m not usually into horror, but DAMN, that’s a scary good book. I like that it’s written as a historical documentary instead of a “this is happening now” thing)
That is one of my favorite books. I am highly disappointed in the movie by the same name that wasted the source material. There was so much potential for a GOOD movie there.
I’m still pretty sure that WWZ needs to be a mini-series directed by Ken Burns.
That said, the audiobook (sadly, abridged) was awesome. We listened to it on an all-night car trip once and kept waking up my brother-in-law yelling “WAIT, IS THAT–?” “YES IT IS, THAT IS HIS VOICE”.
You want a good zombie(-ish) story? Try We’re Alive: A Story of Survival.
The creatures in We’re Alive aren’t “technically” zombies because they’re actually alive. But the thing is: They’re intelligent. Well, some of them.
It’s a show that goes from “zombie” apocalypse to bad to worse to, well…..
It’s got all kinds of zombies, too, from regular zombies, fast zombies, Jumpers, smart ones, something that’s essentially a L4D Tank…….and then the bad zombies come out.
And if that’s bad enough, they have to deal with other survivors.
No spoilers but……Scratch is one of the stand-out villains in recent fiction for me.
Season 1 was inspired by a bunch of vets that spotted a tower apartment building in Iraq, and started joking between themselves that it would be the perfect zombie apocalypse defensive point.
Cannot recommend We’re Alive more. Audio Drama with amazing production quality.
http://www.werealive.com/
True, no joke. You can imagine that she says “I keep telling him he need a gun.” as casually as she might say “I keep telling him he needs a new lawnmower.”
Given the recent storylines, my brain screamed for 5 minutes when I read that, before I could finish the rest of the comic. It uh didn’t get better.
Why would she care about the gays’ feelings??
Oh, they don’t have FEELINGS, FEELINGS are for PEOPLE, you know.
(Just in case it needs clarification, that was sarcasm.)
Oh, very insensitive, but then, Carol’s more than shown how little she actually regards what happened to Joyce and Becky beyond it serving as the backdrop for the epic play: World’s Greatest Christian Mom Saves Her Daughter’s Soul.
What is it about parents (fictional and real-life) whose children but serve as pawns in their own life dreams?
Usually happens due to their initial dreams being killed off by lack of aptitude/circumstances. Then they manufacture new ones based on their children. It’s a sad coping mechanism that artificially raises the value of sed children in some parent’s eyes, therefor making them more dedicated (yet in a selfish way) parents.
Or quite often I suspect by their initial dreams being killed off by being used as pawns in their own parent’s life dreams.
And so on …
Am I the only one that read that as “serve as prawns in their own life dreams?”
Carol is right beside Hank. The voices are coming from behind the door. I think those are simply other churchgoers.
Are ground squirrels good eating like tree rats? Because I used to love me a big pot of squirrel dumplings.
Not sure if joke or real. Clarification please?
Some folks find squirrel a congenial comestible.
Indeed, I have a recipe book (hmm, an possibly a second one too) that has a squirrel recipe.
It may have declined with the rise of suburbia (viewing squirrels as “cute” and all), but squirrel hunting was thing that was common in the fall when the tree nuts were plentiful.
Viewing squirrels as cute is a terrifying concept to someone who grew up in a rural area where they break into your sheds and destroy all of your belongings. Also, my university has campus squirrels that will literally walk over your feet and it’s nervewracking considering that at home, any time a squirrel didn’t run away sufficiently quickly was shot for potential rabies.
It’s probably kinder than trapping them, though I don’t see why squirrels are an issue. It’s not like they have livestock whose feed the squirrels can poach.
Birds. Folks who’s kids leave home who also happen to live in a suburb tend to do things like birdwatching, with lots of bird feeders. Squirrels eat the birdfeed all at once.
This also seems to be a Midwestern Christian Old people activity. My grandparents fit that category and they an their friends do it, and have all kinds of crazy doohickeys to keep the squirrels out. Google squirrel slinky.
My parents have a plank birdfeeder on a deck right outside their back door, which tends to attract a lot of squirrels. My dad’s friends frequently recommend guns to him, but he doesn’t like the idea of killing off said squirrels. They have dogs that will chase them now but for a while when we were kids, we had some creative rodent control measures going.
The first and less visually entertaining is to use a slingshot to fire chunks of baby carrot at them. I think my dad might have actually made contact once, but overall they were misses. I haven’t bothered to tell my dad that the squirrels at the wildlife rehab center I volunteered at were fed carrots regularly. I’m sure 99% those carrots got eaten a few minutes later.
The other method required more forethought: an empty can placed upside down over a small firecracker hooked up to a model rocket starter, with the trigger button inside the kitchen by the window. The can shielded the squirrels so they didn’t get badly hurt (maybe a little bruised or singed, but nothing long term or life threatening). Watching a squirrel ride an empty cat food can off the deck at high velocity was hugely entertaining as a 9 year old.
Squirrels and similar critters can burrow. Ranchers hate that because a steer can bust a leg stepping into a burrow, and a chipmunk burrow can do damage to an older house’s foundation. Where I live, a .22 rifle is preferred for killin’ squirrel-sized critters, though a plinker pistol can do the job in skilled-enough hands. And yes, squirrels are determined, inventive critters who laugh at most anti-squirrel devices on bird feeders — to the point that my mother has given up on all but her hummingbird feeders.
Have her try mixing cayenne pepper (powdered) in with her bird seed. It won’t bother the birds, because their mouths are dry so it doesn’t burn, the same as it doesn’t burn your hands. But mammalian mouths are wet, and so it deters squirrels, mice, and other varmints from eating your bird seed. Or your chicken feed.
Hell, one place I was in, mice were getting into the cupboard under my bathroom sink and chewing on my glycerine soaps, so I blocked it with just a few layers of paper towels dipped in plaster of Paris; but I mixed cayenne pepper in with the plaster. They scratched at it (I could hear them); but it tasted too bad for them to chew through.
As I mentioned in my above comment, squirrels can get into your outdoor buildings (via burrowing and chewing through wood) and ruin your belongings with poop, scratching, and chewing.
I take it you don’t live in rural Wisconsin. Half the .22s in this state are referred to as “squirrel guns” by their owners (as well as various pellet guns, bb guns, and other small caliber bullshit that idiots think are a great “solution” to pest control). XP
Quite reasonable depending on area. My parents have a shotgun to shoot the prairie rats that keep burrowing around digging up everything. Vermin control hasn’t been successful because one of the nearby houses is rented, and the owner won’t take steps, so they just repopulate there and spread out again.
They’re not the only family in the area with guns for that purpose (and shot specifically chosen to take out the critters, but be less dangerous in case of a badly placed rock or really badly chosen backstop).
do it Hank. Tell them where they can shove it.
I don’t think he will. Yet. But this is fuel on the fire, so when things come to a head, I think Becky can count on the righteous fury of two Browns backing her.
Three browns! Jocelyn is also backing her all the way.
I think Jocelyn has too much on the line to go nuclear, though.
If Daddy Brown’s gone nuclear, I can’t imagine Jocelyn would be too far behind coming out.
Hank’s getting pumped, he’s gonna kick some ass.
Hank’s about to take a page out if Sarah’s book. The Old Testament God one.
SONG OF SOLOMON!
…
What? That’s Old Testament.
So are Ruth and Naomi, which I can only hope is gonna come up.
That…is a perspective I had not considered before. Interesting note, Jesus was supposedly descended from Ruth, what with her being David’s (I want to say but don’t actually remember) grandmother.
Yeah, I’d never heard about their relationship in that context as well (as opposed to other relationships in the Bible, the natures of which have been discussed, like David and Jonathan, etc.) until recently. Turns out there’s a bit of debate about the translations and the use of wording for Ruth’s promise and dedication to Naomi as having the same wording as the commitment between a married couple (perhaps related to the passages abt a man leaving his family and old life, etc?). It’s funny, really, growing up the sermons involving them focused a lot more on her commitment to Naomi being about God and converting, but I like learning about the whole-hearted commitment between the two women. It’s something my church didn’t focus on as much. Y’know, them as… Well, people :/
That passage from Ruth was read at a Catholic wedding I attended recently. I was entertained.
For a moment I thought we were talking about Ruth Lessick and Naomi Siegal (Ethan’s mother). I was very, very confused.
Well, damn, a new ship is born.
I think Hank is about to do something he’ll regret and something we’ll approve of.
Quite wholeheartedly.
He’s already well ahead of Hank Pym in the Hank-Off, and edging out Hank Hill. If he stands up for Becky, he’ll be gaining on Hank Venture.
He’s probably more deserving of Steve McQueen’s jacket from Le Mans than Venture is, anyways.
To be fair, he was getting away from buying new clothes, and it was nice tosee him value used clothes.
Am I missing something with this hair thing? How is HAIR f**king HAIR a big deal?!
“She’s…she’s lesbianning her hair! In our faces!”
Correct response: “Lady, after what God did to your face, this is nothing.”
Reminds me of the first time someone describes Carol Danvers’ makeover as Captain Marvel “She has lesbian hair now!”. I was like “WTF is lesbian hair?”. But apparently it’s a thing XD
I tend to hear it referred to as ‘tumblr hair.’ Because of course everyone on tumblr is a SJW fool.
Sweet lightning, I love Willis’ word filters.
I had a theater teacher who said there was no better way to communicate a female’s sexual orientation than with her hair. Long hair: straight, short hair: lesbian.
Of course bisexuals don’t exist.
When you don’t like someone’s lifestyle you’ll find anything wrong with it to zero in on and make a big deal. This goes for all sides of that coin too.
That’s my fetish
Hair-on-hair fucking is also something the church disapproves of.
Is that why they disapproved of Avatar?
XD Good one
That’s what I was thinking when people here were complaining about it.
The hair isn’t a traditional style. Like think of certain places of work where you have to maintain a certain hairstyle. Where I’m working we were told that we can’t dye our hair in crazy colors.
Don’t you know that non-conforming hairstyles are a gateway to homsexuality, drug use, breaking out into Tom Cochrane songs, and a sudden perchance for parchesi!?
That’s what I don’t understand though. To me hair is one of the most superfluous parts of the human body and the most easily customized! There’s literally no value in judging someone based on thier hair because it could be completely different the next day, hour, fuck even minute. Unless your bald in which case…….sorry?
Bald makes it even easier to apply wigs.
Ah, to live in that kind of world.
But, see, it’s about control. It’s about defining Becky’s virtuosity by her availability to men.
By choosing to look how she wants, she’s openly defying that.
The Bible actually has pretty strict rules on hair styles for women. The idea is that they are supposed to be ‘modest’. Furthermore, people are somewhat ret-conning their own awareness of her situation. She’s a known lesbian, so ANYTHING that isn’t picture-perfect cookie-cutter Good Christian Handmaiden is immediately assumed to be her way of ‘flaunting’ her sexuality in their faces. The idea that this is simply her attempt exploring her own feelings about herself will never even occur to them, because women aren’t expected to HAVE feelings about themselves–that’s what men are for.
NOT PARCHESI!
Oh, I know.
WHAT IN THE… ok, SO: I had to google the term because I’ve never heard it before, BUT I KNOW THAT GAME! I’ve played it when I was little, mostly everyone in Romania knows it, but it’s called “Nu te supara, frate!” over here, which translates to ‘Don’t get mad, brother!’. Seems someone nicked it from India last century (my best bet is communists, but it could be older then that and I’m simply unaware of it). At least that’s what I’m inferring, because the two boards look almost identical. It could have different rules, but… I’m kind of shocked, honestly.
The things you learn in a comment section.
Parcheesi probably had multiple entries to Europe, but I suspect the British Raj was the most recent pathway. “Parcheesi” itself is a commercial version of Pachisi, and in the U.S. and Canada I suspect the most common variant is the game Sorry! (exclamation point part of the name).
I played Sorry! obsessively as a child, and was bemused/pleased to see it appear in some bars and cafes next to the cribbage boards.
Sorry! was one of my favorite things to do as a kid. My mom and I still break it out sometimes.
*Gasp* Not parchesi!!!
In this sort of sect of Christianity, Becky’s hairstyle is genuinely seen as loudly defiant of the godly/modest way a woman should present herself, especially in the church itself. When I was briefly forced into this brand of god (my mom went all Born-again for a minute), I had blue hair. Mind you, I was twelve at this time. The other parents in the church forbid their children from being friends with me or speaking to me beyond necessary. Made youth group particularly trying on my self-esteem.
Then we moved and she got bored with god. Thank you, Army.
A lot of denominations have certain viewpoints about hair, like women’s hair needs to be long because it’s a sign of humility or chastity or her (subservient) place in the home or something like that (because of something in the Bible, of course), while guys are expected to have clean-cut, short hair. Becky cutting her hair to a stereotypical guy-length goes against all of that (rightfullysobecausefuckthatnoise).
There’s a whole lot of nonsense about women’s hair in 1 Corinthians 11.
You’d think Samson would make a serious precedent for long-haired dudes.
Not to mention the fact that Jesus himself is almost always depicted with long hair.
My hair like Jesus wore it
Hallelujah I adore it
Hallelujah Mary loved her son,
Why don’t my mother love me?
My mother has this friend whose son grew his hair long and while it… Did not look good, none of us had any problem with it? Until she (the mother) came to my mother saying that she was upset because “people would judge her” about… His hair? And my mom was like “who cares, also, you have short hair so you don’t really have a leg to stand on if you’re going to try to theologically debate him into cutting his hair?” Yeah I’m… Not a fan of that woman.
I figure that the congregation figures that the new hairdo and Becky’s newfound sexuality are connected. They take it as a message, a constant reminder and I’m sure Becky meant it as such.
Yeah, she definitely meant it as such. As Ethan said, “She didn’t just leave it. Becky nuked the closet from orbit, just to be sure.”
Also, consider how badly Joyce reacted to the haircut initially – Joyce’s mindset (used to be) a litmus test for just how poorly something would be received in her church.
Joyce’s parents belong to a sect of Christianity that is all about men owning women and women being servants to men. At least that’s what I get.
The hair is a symbol of Becky making her own choices.
It’s a style associated with lesbians. (I mean, non-lesbians can wear undercuts, but it’s pretty good advertising that she’s into ladies.)
It’s also connected with a rejection of ‘proper feminine’ roles, including showing men that she actively doesn’t care whether they find her beautiful or not.
But mostly, they can’t handle the reality of seeing her being herself.
So is she’d got a haircut because her boyfriend* liked it, that would be OK?
* If she had one, which she doesn’t and won’t.
So, “no, I’m not a lesbian, my boyfriend really likes this look”? If it wasn’t Becky at all, I imagine it might be a good deflection, as they might then question why the boyfriend is some kind of weirdo, instead, with tastes that aren’t 100% God-approved…? I dunno, this is beyond my experience.
Hair is the first battleground. It’s a powerful tool for self-expression, so when a group does not want that self-expression they censor it. Hair is the fight that so many groups have to war over to be themselves. It’s the war over black hair that deems “white” hair styles “more professional”, it’s the first battleground of the newly out queer person or trans person, how they can signal their gender identity or they’re attractions, it’s the tool of colonialism to try and wipe out a tribe’s hair styles and customs.
Hair is the battleground and to this church, hair is what they’ve used to control Becky for so long, to tell her no, this is what you are, this is what you will become. This is your fate. And when she decided to get a haircut that was modern and rad and more associated with queer people than not. That was her revolution.
Once when I was going to a UU church (liberal religion, not like this one) I had an elderly women ask me what was up with my generation dying their hair weird colors, how could they mess with their bodies like that? (I had a pretty normal hairstyle at the time.) I read it not as a criticism but an honest question by someone who was genuinely confused. I saw she had a pierced ears and explained it was just another way to customize appearance and express yourself, like piercing your ears so you could wear jewelry, only less painful or permanent.
She… got it…. and clearly didn’t get it. It’s like she’d filed one act in one category and another in another, and I’d successfully torn down the wall between the two categories, but that just left her more confused.
That was at one of the most liberal churches you’ll ever find.
It’s not really about Christian doctrine. To the best of my knowledge, the only Christian doctrines about hair are to not cut it or shave (Leviticus) and that you aren’t honorable if you don’t shave (some flavor of Paul), with those applying either equally to men and women or moreso to men.
No, what this is really about is that people have unrealistic Expectations about what the world around them is like, and when those Expectations get violated, some personalities get prissy, defensive, belligerent, and hostile. And “privileged and conservative” seems to make people much, much more likely to be that kind of personality.
Yeah, this.
Trufax: When I was a kid, I was not allowed to have my hair shorter than mid-back length (and usually it was longer).
There’s a big reason I shaved my head at thirteen. Probably the same reason Becky “accidentally” got hot glue in her hair.
Hair styles have always been a big deal. In the 60’s men wearing long hair had the crap beat out of them if caught by the self righteous. Boys with long hair were suspended from school, and suspension meant just that.
Girls didn’t have that sort of problem then: but dye your hair blue or put a strip in it, and find out how fast you got sent home.
Look up the song from Hair. It was real. 🙂
60’s? Hah. I’ve had to deal with it throughout the 2000s!
You see, I’ve had my hair in spikes for nearly the entirety of high school. Came with trying to be less shy and focusing more on my extroverted side (turns out I’m an ambivert).
However, I’ve had several jabs and even threats from teachers, some going as far as threatening to lower my ‘Behavior’ grade for it (Note: In the Romanian system at the time, if that grade got lower then a 5 on a 10-scale, you got to repeat the entire year!). I’ve successfully rebutted all of them, but it was a struggle at times. It’s still a very real issue people have to live/deal with in certain places/countries.
For the record, the formerly ‘normal’ aggression towards radically different hair styles seems to have dissipated from the vast majority of Romania, but since this part of the story is being played out in rural America… yeah, I’m not at all surprised.
And in 60s “long hair” was Beatles’ style. Like <a href="http://media.vogue.com/r/w_1260//wp-content/uploads/2014/10/09/01-1964-the-beatles-hair.jpg" you can't see all their ears hair. Those rebels.
Of course http://media.vogue.com/r/w_1260//wp-content/uploads/2014/10/09/01-1964-the-beatles-hair.jpg was the URL I was going for.
All I can come up with is that they know she’s a lesbian, so it stands out to them. Otherwise, I agree. I’ve known plenty of women with short hair. My mom has had it as long as I’ve been alive. My sister had a similar buzz-the-sides haircut at one point. Never once saw anyone freak out about it. Maybe some old people saying stuff about “kids these days,” but nothing more.
It’s different, so it stands out. This does not seem to be a church where cutting your hair is a sin. (My mom was ostracized from some Pentecostals when she first cut her hair.)
In other words, it’s an excuse.
When my wife (who had long red hair to her waist when we first started dating) cut her hair to shorter than mine, my family made all sorts of passive aggressive comments and questions about it. :-/
1 Corinthians 11:15 “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”
Because women are just supposed to be ashamed. Of being.
Actually when it was written it was actually meant to be progressive as the Jewish people at the time required married women to cut their hair. Actually it’s really interesting how each Abrahamic religious text is actually more progressive than the last. The Quran actually allows women to own and inherit property (even if it is less than men it’s still more than before). I sometimes wonder why there hasn’t been a newer more progressive revelation since but I guess whatever higher power exists got fed up with the followers fucking things up and just said “Screw it” and now we are on our own figuring things out.
To quote my mom (who is atheist, ironically enough): “That hairstyle makes her look like a dyke!” (Said about every woman she ever saw with hair cut above the bottom of their ears anywhere on their head. XP)
Even their bangs? Strict!
I shit you not, I was a senior in high school before I had bangs that didn’t touch the bottom of my nose when they weren’t pulled back or curled, and that was only because a salon fucked up my perm that badly that year. ^^; Otherwise, they were cut shorter than the rest of my hair fairly often, but because I had wavy hair, they were only short because of the curls. Wet and flat, they were all over my face. XP
For the record, I’m rocking a buzz cut now. 😀 My cut previous to this was the same as Becky’s, because as soon as I saw Becky’s undercut I was like, “That’s so fuckin’ rad, I’m doing that one next!” 😀 I can’t remember the last time I had a “traditionally feminine” haircut. ^^; Probably college some time.
FWIW, I’m now 36, and my mom still doesn’t like the buzz cuts or undercuts on women, but she’s “chilled” enough that she tolerates pixie cuts and doesn’t say anything to me about my hair. XP
😀 Yeah tell them off Hank!
Make the eyebrow in panel one a gravatar.
How fucking good is your life that the thing that’s bothering you most today is someone else’s HAIRCUT. Fucking christ.
Actually, I’d say that if you keep getting pissed off by all those tiny details your life probably sucks ass.
Word.
Heh, I’m reminded of all the assholes who swarmed over Becky for months ranting about her haircut and how much it bothered them.
i don’t understand how anyone could be bothered by that. I don’t even like that kind of hairstyle but like… who gives a shit. Not everyone has to be modeled after your exact ideal of beauty
I was actually just thinking about that! “WHY DID SHE SPEND THAT MONEY ON A HAIRCUT INSTEAD OF
GIVING IT TO THE POORUSING IT TO NOT BE SUCH A LEECH ON JOYCE!” Well, folks, THIS IS WHY. Because having her hair the way she had it before was a really, really big deal in the church she grew up in, so cutting her hair had enormous symbolic connotations and she wanted every. single. one of them. She threw off that veil and burned it.I think Joyce’s reaction of “too much Becky” is a lot more meaningful in retrospect, because in this church it looks like being too much of yourself (including RIGHTEOUS ANGER mode Joyce) is not recommended for women. It’s how Joyce and Becky (and Jocelyne!) grew up. And honestly, if Carol has internalized this stuff in order to be the Biblical Womanhood Enforcer, no wonder she’s such a mean, bitter pain in the ass.
hahahaah this is exactly it though
when you proscribe to gender roles in this way it makes you completely, utterly miserable. having to shut up and mind your ps and qs and never have your own opinion and dance around men instead of owning yourself and having boundaries – you are constantly reminded that you are seen as less. that you’re not complete without a man.
internalized misogyny is a real bongo drum.
Yup, all of this.
I’m reminded a lot of this comic:
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-6/02-that-perfect-girl/passage/
And the one a few days after called KD. Not only for how much foulness Joyce has internalized with regards to her own worth and value, but also because of how stunned she was at the notion of actually choosing her own path, having value outside what utility she could provide for a future man.
Like that was literally not something she processed in any way, because of how much women in her society are expected to be Mrs. X rather than their own name, their own self.
Becky reclaiming Becky was a hugely important act and a huge rebellion. It’s why Joyce reacted in shock to the notion of her being “so much Becky”. Because if Becky can be so much Becky, if Dorothy believes that Joyce can be so much Joyce… then maybe she could hope for her own life and in her mind even considering that notion is a sin against God.
It’s also why I think Joyce’s arc will end with her breaking away fully from the Church. Becky made peace with the notion that God and the church in her eyes are not even remotely the same, but to Joyce, she has no means of separating the two and so as she sees more and more of the awfulness of her church, so she is in the notion of God she was raised to believe in.
Honestly i’m hoping that eventually Willis will include a character who is religious WITHOUT being a total asshat. Which I mean, unlikely, but we do exist. They could maybe show her that there’s a middle ground where you can have faith but still be a good person.
maybe i’ll even make them the main character and their best friend
This excellent comeback would be funnier if it hadn’t been at least the tenth time I’ve seen the initial attack happen in this comment field. And I was not really reading the comment field that much during the Toedad storyline, for example.
And sure, there are Christians who are religious people without being asshats. Both in this comic, and also in the real world. But if I were you, GenericGuestName, I would not be so quick to include myself in that category.
I didn’t mean that in a “i’m so angry he makes fun of christians!” way. I just mean it’s what i’m hoping for personally. I don’t really see Becky in that light. I got the impression she wasn’t really devout. Which isn’t bad. I just hope to eventually see someone who is. Joyce is good, but at this point her faith seems to be coming down around her ears. What I MEANT was that I hope to see someone who is devout and confident in their faith without it being completely horrible to others. Again, I did NOT mean this in a “I’m so angry” way, just as a it would be cool if this happened. Billie and Becky don’t strike me as particularly devout. The only ones that came across as devout to me are Joyce, Hank, and whatsherface (the asshat), and hank’s wife (the other asshat). Sorry if this came across as whiney or what have you, it was just my opinion. Hell i’m not even Christian. I just thought it would be cool if she met someone who could show her that there is a way to be religious and not asshat-y. Maybe her dad will become that eventually, but as I recall he hasn’t been such in the past. Not compared to his wife of course, but still.
Oh, it is the classic “OK, you gave me examples just of what I wanted, but they do not count, because they are Not True Christians*” bait trap. Never seen that before!**
*Or as you would say it, “devout and confident in the faith”. Same difference.
**Except for almost all the times someone else has made the same complaint and gotten perfectly good examples in return.
Becky is Christian.
You don’t actually read this comic, do you?
not asshats: Joyce, Becky, Hank, (technically) Billie…
I mean, okay, as far as I can tell the basic concept at the heart of this comic is “everyone fails at some point, everyone is an asshole at some point, and we love ’em anyway” and… hey, wait, that seems like a morality that is pretty much my exact brand of Christianity! WHAT A TWIST.
Apparently Willis was too going by the Alt Text.
“Hank can learn” continues!
I think its more of “hank fell in with a bad crowd”
It was them damned lesbian wiles.
I would suggest Carol and the churchgoers around them are the bad crowd Hank fell in with. He seems like he could be a decent dude, otherwise.
Oh? Maybe Hank’ll be the one to Hulk out instead of Joyce.
Later they bond over the shared ability to Hulk out.
It was a genetic passing.
We don’t know where in their ancestral line it started.
I’m sure she got it from somewhere, and I’m 73% sure it wasn’t gamma radiation, because we’ve seen what that does to people and they die rather than get buff.
I’m hoping and praying that if Joyce gets angry (or maybe she or Becky will start crying? Or both?), Hank will really get the message and either stand up for them or comfort them. I’m not optimistic necessarily, but I think it’s a viable possibility!
Additional Hulk Joke!
Since two minutes late is forever in this business.
Oh what the hey I changed my gravitar but it didn’t change. *grumble*
Oh there it goes. Never mind.
It takes a few minutes to kick in.
“I don’t think church is a place for advancing politics,” she or he said, advancing a political viewpoint.
Funny how they don’t seem to think the same about Carol’s gun comment, eh?
Carol’s in a different room with Hank. The conversation is on the other side of the door.
I dunno, “a gun would be useful for x task,” where x is equal to keeping the squirrels away, hardly seems political.
Her tone and expression are a little horrific with context, but not political. Not that hair or sexuality is either.
i guess i feel like that’s not the only reason why she wants Hank to get a gun. but that’s probably that horrific context
There are two gun comments in todays’ strip.
The one that really is from Carol about using a gun to expel the squirrels and the other one from the conversation Hank is overhearing:
“I get that what he did to her was unacceptable. I’m not excusing that. It was awful. Horrendous.”
They are discussing Toedad firing a rifle in the general direction of Becky&Joyce on the IU campus.
they kind of intermingle in interesting ways. like the whole gun control issue is about rights vs. abuse. rights have tended to be held as more important than potential abuse. the kind of gun you’d need to drive off squirrels, i’m told, isn’t the kind of gun that you could use to hurt a human being. and that’s kind of the whole point.
These are ground squirrels. You get ground squirrels with traps that you set in their burrow openings, not guns. Everyone knows that. Bullets don’t go through dirt that well. And using a gun to kill any kind of squirrel, tree or ground, inside a town is absolutely ridiculous, especially a town as big as theirs. Even a squirrel gun can hurt a human being. This Carol character doesn’t grasp guns or ground squirrels.
Well, you could use a shotgun with bird shot or rock salt.
Or you could get something like a Ruger 1 Varminter
“Why do you have to bring politics into your existence? Why can’t you just be normal? Ugh.”
This. This this. That’s totally what people mean when they say a matter of identity is just “politics.”
What she (interesting that I’m assuming it’s a she. /me shrugs) means is church isn’t a place for advancing politics (s)he disagrees with.
that kind of passive-aggressive loud whispering is pretty gendered, yeah. and this is a place that is all about appropriate gender roles. i guess i would be pretty surprised to find out that this speaker was a dude or a genderless person. guys in this culture aren’t socialized to think that they can’t just say something to someone and have it respected.
Not to mention that sexuality in no way is political in the context of Becky.
I did a quick google search for “politics”. Here’s the definition Google provides:
Like, what the hell isn’t politics?
Playing Solitaire?
Aren’t you trying to apply uniform decisions to all the cards in the game?
Nope! Case-by-case basis!
… also, they’re not uniforms, they’re suits.
Nice.
Technically? Nothing.
That’s the real meaning of “the personal is political”. That there is no aspect of one’s personal life that isn’t affected and impacted by politics in one form or another. How we love, how we fuck, how we pee, how we work, how we recreation, how we take care of our bodies, even how we die. Everything is affected by politics. Even the status quo is a political stance.
Which is the extra nastiness in setting only a specific group of people’s lives as political or a certain set of political beliefs as political and thus “controversial” and “not to be brought up”. It’s about enforcing certain ways of existing out of the public sphere and creating a political argument that one’s own political stances are just “natural” and “apolitical”.
Apparently it IS a place for advancing hypocrisy.
….
…. but we knew that already.
You don’t undddderstaaaand!!! It’s not politics when you’re aggressively defending a regressive worldview, it’s only politics when one expresses oneself or defends oneself from said regressive worldview.
Geez, it’s right there in Page 4 of your handout, right after the section on how people existing is them shoving their identity down your throat and how defending oneself from bullying attack is the real bullying.
Well i mean, didn’t Jesus say to turn the other cheek or something? So obviously not letting bullies ground you into the dirt is totes anti Christian. /sarcasm
It’s also super fun when they assume you’re HOH enough they can actually whisper shit like this right behind you. Joke’s on them, turns out I can hear asshat-ese at any volume.
I’m adding that to the list of super powers that I Do Not Want.
Eh. When people think you’re Deaf, they say all sorts of interesting things around you while you’re trying to fix the internet in the front office. Keeping a straight face was the hardest part.
You probably want to add mine, too: “Get into the mindset of really horrible people.” I can usually explain what’s actually going on behind incoherent internet screeds and comments like the one in the comic to people who are genuinely befuddled by them, but it always makes me feel like I need a shower afterwards.
Now imagine how Superman feels, able to hear every conversation in Metropolis.
Yes, even those ones.
I’m not entirely sure what HOH stands for, but I have this very amusing image in my head of water molecules acting very strange, so I thank you for that…and now they have fancy hats, because church is all about those fancy hats, at least according to my aunt.
Hard of hearing, I think. But I like your interpretation better.
Hard of hearing. These people assumed it meant fully Deaf. Trouble is, while I can’t always distinguish the typical man’s voice anymore to hear words, (deeper pitch + for some societal reason men mumble a lot), the typical high-pitch of the judgemental church-going asshat women are still all too clear.
It was fun for the minute it took them to work it out. People gossip about the most damning things when they think you can’t hear them.
Damn it Willis, I can’t handle all of Hank’s ambiguous activity! Is he going to help Joyce and Becky or hurt them? This is too much ambiguity!
Really? Hank seems pretty unambiguously pissed off by the congregation gossiping about his pretty-much-daughter.
This should’ve been the Father’s day update
For me this is the Father’s Day update. Time zones?
This is the Monday comic.
A lot of us get the comic a day early, but in the late evening.
Precisely. West Coast dweller here. It comes in at around 9:03 pm. in central California.
Yup. When DoA updates, I know it’s officially nighttime and I should start considering sleep.
Then I look out the window and holy shit the moon is pretty tonight, fuck yeah California.
Considering my days end late in the night, this IS the Father’s Day comic. I couldn’t be happier 🙂
how dare becky be herself? its shameful
Yeah..her hair isn’t her hair.
The forehead wrinkles, the nose scrunching, the furrowing brows, and the building anger for Becky to match! HANK’S GOT IT ALL!
Yeah, how DARE she be openly happy about who she is.
That monster.
Yeah it’s not like the rest of the parish can be.
Why can’t the rest of the parish be openly happy about who Becky is?
I mean, it’s gotta be easier than being openly happy about who THEY are.
I feel like that’s common, where people who are hateful about other’s existence live such scared small lives that enforcing the crab bucket is the only way they can feel better about their bad choices.
Well who every you are it’s not from a like of trying on other peoples part and carol if hank doesn’t want a gun he doesn’t want a gun.
Ooooh, can we expect a Hank blowout? I am eager with anticipation. 😀
No matter what, I foresee this church meeting ending quite pleasingly indeed. 🙂
Your stupid overconfidence is nostalgic.
Unfortunately, I think you have to shorten that link to get around the bongo filter.
You go, Scrunchy-Faced-Dad.
I wanna be super jazzed about Hank and what will hopefully be him defending Becky, but holy shit Carol. About a week ago a man pointed a RIFLE at your daughter and her BEST FRIEND and here you are all “hahaha my husband needs a gun to shoot the squirrels” WOW. WHAT THE FUCK.
She felt that he was doing what he felt was right at the time. She cares more about ‘Good Christian Values’ than her own flesh-and-blood’s well being.
The poor woman, we have to understand what she has been through
It’s been all the illustrative how much the context of last week has been scrubbed clean in this little community that spawned it. I mean, this was the church that bred Toedad and his beliefs and everyone’s ranting about lesbians being sinners and joking about guns, like two of their own weren’t nearly murdered by another one of their own.
Well put. Thank you.
The man listening to Hank looks like a bald Toedad. Next in line?
Some people, even some who are not Carol, can differentiate between possessing a gun as a squirrel-control device and using a gun as an intimidation/harm device against other people. Yes, I get that the intent is to reinforce the presentation of Carol as horrifyingly tone-deaf (mission accomplished).
Don’t forget that Toedad’s gun was identified by several here as just such a “varmint rifle”.
Yup. And if anyone thinks that wasn’t deliberate on Willis’s part, I’ve got twenty bucks here for a non-conforming haircut.
Yep. That does not contradict what I said.
Yeah, seriously. Does Carol not care about Joyce at all, beyond as an extension of herself to control? She can’t muster up enough compassion not to mention guns while the daughter who was very recently threatened with a firearm is visiting?
I don’t think I’ve ever been so relieved to see a character getting angry before.
I guess we know where some of the comment section went, Joyce’s church. 😛
Comment of the year! 😀
I think they may have already been there.
Hank is… basically a good person. He uses his religion as a guide for his life, not an opportunity to judge people.
I really like that we get to see Joyce’s struggles reconciling her faith with reality occurring in parallel on a more subtle level with Hank.
Suddenly, Hank realizes what a dick he may have been, and is gonna kick some ass.
I am really liking Hank. Joyce has a supportive parent, Becky has a supportive father figure, and Jocelyn is much more likely to have a supportive parent should she decide to come out. Hank may not like all the changes in his life, but he knows he’s a father AND that his religion says to love one another, so he will do his darndest to deal with his own issues before trying to force his children to change.
Ya know, the problem with how I speed read is that I skip some words, and sometimes context goes missing. Like how I read ‘Becky has a supportive father figure’ as ‘Becky has a supportive father’. I had a bit of a wtf moment there.
I had the same double-take here.
Hank.
Hank, I’m putting my faith in you to be a Good Dad(tm). (Or Dad Figure, in Becky’s case.)
HANK, DON’T LET ME DOWN.
“She used to be so beautiful” because supressing who you really are is HOT
Of course, that’s the expectation they have for all women.
Yup, that’s the role occupied by young women. To be pretty, to snag themselves a husband. Later, they’ll be expected to be the perfect holy housewives, but for now, be pretty, get a man.
And if the men “playfully” swat at their behinds, well that’s only their fault for existing and being pretty. I mean, aren’t you supposed to safeguard your virtues ladies, I mean back in my day, we weren’t all strumpets, and so on…
A culture where women are decorations or victims, and victims must be mercilessly destroyed.
In some churches and denominations, there is a weird fixation on long hair for women.
And it’s weird because cutting your hair short is often seen as a mutilation of natural beauty among these churches.
It’s partly an Old Testament thing, where Jewish women, in order to show that they were faithful Jewish women, were required to wear there hair long and covered. It was partly for religious reasons, but also partly for reasons of self-identifying as an ethnic Jew in ancient Palestine, and thus not being assumed to be a Canaanite woman.
I’m only aware of it as a New Testament thing. 1 Corinthians 11:6 — “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
Yes, there’s an “if” there, and that’s the out for many.
But the context still is problematic, as this is the point where it defines women as being subservient to men. The command to cover your head is a sign of subservience. It even says that a woman’s beauty exists for the glory of man, while a man’s exists for the glory of God.
Also, in Greek and Roman society the slaves were often known for their shaved heads, while free people had hair. So that explains at least one of the “if”s.
Of course, we’ve completely dropped the whole Biblical “men should never shave or cut their hair” thing.
Has nothing to do with beauty, though that’s the given reason. See 1 Corinthians 11:15.
this whole conversation has me thinking about when i cut my hair short a couple years ago. i ended up absolutely hating it, hahaha – i don’t even remember why i did it. i think i just did it because i felt like i should try it and then it took me a full year and a half to grow it back. i missed being able to braid it and put it in ponytails and play with it, etc. i guess i’m glad i tried it, but it made me miserable until it grew out again.
tl;dr hair is important for self-identity
It is all about the “mystery”.
*biting fingernails*
*covering eyes*
It’s nice to see that some things never change. Church ladies still stand around casting the first stone. I still remember the laments when segregation was abolished: “I know if one showed up here we’d have to let them in, but I just don’t know what I’d do.”
holy shit
lemme guess the number of people interested in showing up were about 0
It was probably in the negative numbers, actually. Many that were there didn’t want to be. Me included.
sounds about right!
Joyce makes that same expression as Hank is making now when confronted with outrageous injustice.
Okay, sincere question to any with more churchgoing experience than fairly limited amount I have. Is the hair thing really an issue? Everything else being thrown at Becky is recognizable to me as an unpleasant reality of some types of Christianity, and I know there are sects for whom hairstyles are an element of their faith, but I’ve never encountered backlash about hairstyles from mainstream Christians as a phenomenon. Have I just been lucky enough to miss it?
It’s a non-conformal style. Anything that goes against the norm, even hairstyles, are highly frowned upon in some (many?) churches. That she’s gay just makes it all the worse and the hair gives them more ammo to judge.
So the problem isn’t that it’s short, it’s that it’s unusual enough to be seen as confrontational and political? Geez, what’s it like to live a life in which you feel the need to police the hairstyles of teenage girls.
If you think that’s controlling, Google “purity ball”.
Ten to one Toedad took her to one of those at some point, too. I mean, he wouldn’t even let her cut it feminine-but-short without an excuse, much less this.
Try the 1960’s when girls were sent home from school if they tried something that outrageios, and God forbid you put a stripe in your hair, or dye it.
Boys were sent home if their hair touched their collar.
And the schools ruled at the time: if your family wanted you back in school, you fixed the hair to match the rules.
Semi-related, my grandma basically said to my face I was less of a man and no sane girl would like me because I tend to have long hair and I have a pierced ear, and that’s not masculine.
I find it genuinely funny how many people actually believe that.
They obviously took this 1996 Mary Worth storyline to heart. http://maryworthcomics.com/comics/february-4-1996/
The taboo on hats indoors is pretty ingrained in me, but I invite anyone who thinks long hair unmanly to go watch a Conan movie and/or broaden their idea of masculinity.
You’ve just been lucky enough to miss it. The more fundamental branches of the church really preach against any non-“feminine” (aka long, traditional female hairstyles) because of course good, Godly women would show their modesty, chasteness, and focus on God (and not worldly things, like following trends and fashion) through how they wear their hair. Guys also tend to have specific hair rules to follow (mostly short, clean-cut, etc) because they’re men and the rulers of the home and leaders in Christ, so they can’t have hairstyles that have feminine traits.
(That should all be read as being sarcastic, but not to you, Ross, I swear. I just… those views are mindboggling. > > )
It depends a lot on the church and its attitudes. Conservative places like this? Definitely it’s a problem. Less because of any particular doctrine, and more because it’s, well, not conservative.
A lot of people are jumping on it as some doctrinal thing, but it could just as easily be close-community viewpoint. Becky changed her hair to highlight the change in herself, and the community is now dealing with the change, unable to just pretend everything’s the same as it used to be. “She used to be so beautiful” isn’t some hellfire condemnation in itself, it’s wishing for a past that no longer exists. Similar mentality that made Toedad snap.
Well, I think Toedad specifically said how she’d ‘destroyed her womanhood’ or something to that effect when he commented on her hair.
Yeah, here it is http://www.dumbingofage.com/2015/comic/book-6/01-to-those-whod-ground-me/facetoface/
This. Her long hair is a symbol of her femininity and womanhood. By cutting it, she is showing her gender confusion that is leading her away from the path of the Lord and into being confused about the “proper” roles for men and women. This being of course the only reason why a “good” girl could decide she is a lesbian (minus of course demon possession or straight up being secretly bad).
And by doing it willfully and without shame, she is revealing that she was a “bad” girl after all, and is now too sin touched to be saved.
I don’t have any churchgoing experience and I didn’t grow up in a particularly church-y city, and I’ve still run into this kind of attitude. I’m kind of impressed that there are commenters here who haven’t? Like, people care a LOT about how other people dress and make themselves up, including their hairstyles and colors. The media flips its shit every single time a famous woman gets a pixie cut, immediately speculating that she might be a lesbian. This kind of stuff is only amplified exponentially by being in a deeply religious community, so I don’t see how any of this is a surprise.
As an alternative example, in Catholic schools, short hair is frowned upon as well coz it’s considered not feminine enough. Furthermore, a non-secular example are people saying “you’re pretty for someone with short hair” or “you look like a lesbian” coz apparently short hair is ugly and/or gay??? So it’s a combination of all that, I guess.
I’m just gonna say: Bill Gothard. BILL GOTHARD. Just. I don’t know where to start explaining how all this shit ties together, but Bill Gothard is a good start. His creepy fixation on very young women with a very specific kind of hair got turned into a WELL THIS IS THE WAY BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD SHOULD LOOK, I’M SURE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PARTICULAR FETISH thing that then got broadcast throughout the conservative homeschooling universe, which sure enough brought a lot of young ladies who looked a certain way into his orbit. http://www.recoveringgrace.org/gothardfiles/
it’s funny because the last hair conversation i ran into was about the “I Want To Speak to a Manager” haircut, which generally features on a middle-aged white mom. looks like this: http://40.media.tumblr.com/6427bb492b7a7b2de1bc64e6c8c6b1e8/tumblr_nfkv1yy1Tw1u42p4wo1_540.png
it’s more of a tumblr thing, and it speaks mostly to middleclass white feminism, i think. it’s kind of an interesting meme because it bounces from outright misogyny to class issues? like the people who have experienced the “I Want to Speak to a Manager” haircut are going to be people who are working minimum wage. but like the reason why it stands out that they want to speak to a manager is because the wearer of this haircut is going to be typically female.
BUT LIKE as obnoxious as white feminists can be, if they want to speak to a manager, they’re speaking out for their own needs; and that like this haircut goes against gender norms which is why it gets a meme. i can just about promise you that there are older men in the same situation who are much, much more obnoxious and demanding. but like there’s not much lovable about them, they’re just kind of scary. idk, i could probably make a meme about the old bologna guy who came to my deli, but they’re not that memorable because white guys are considered default.
like, memes don’t always get circulated on tumblr like they do on twitter. twitter will do hashtags to bring awareness to social problems/things they care about, but tumblr memes have to have something you can love about them that’s also instantly recognizable. like the PTA mom meme: something comes up that typifies white middleclass culture, inevitably you’re gonna have someone say “fight me helen” and it is on. the PTA brownies are gonna fly like a guilty pleasure jerry springer binge watch, or reminding rachel that you know about her husband cheating on her with the secretary. *drama popcorn nom*
ANYWAYS (to bring us back to somewhat DoA related), the “i want to speak to a manager” haircut is not unlike Becky’s haircut here. so, i mean, her last haircut while super short was on the Sam Carter side of self-expression. it was acceptable, looked like it came from the 80s, it was traditional enough that it was okay. but by upgrading to the “i want to speak to a manager” haircut she’s associating herself with feminism and modernism even more than she’s associated herself with lesbianism. and that is gonna scare the bejeezers out of her church’s little conservative hearts.
*addnote: i don’t actually know that much about lesbian culture and/or interpretations of lesbian so that statement should probably be struck
‘”the only acceptable politics are my politics, all other politics are really just too political”
But to them, it’s not politics. Politics are new world views for them that clash with their ‘gospel’.
My truth, your politics, their wickedness.
Joyce really does take after her father in more ways than just appearance.
The “why do they have to keep bringing ‘politics’ into everything” lament. Also known as “the very existence of gay people makes me uncomfortable but they keep reminding me they exist by so they should be punished.”
Of course, for the most part the “reminder that they exist” basically amounts to people basically living their lives in a way that makes them happy and fulfilled instead of as if they are ashamed of their existence.
Yup! They want erasure. It’s okay for gay people to exist so long as there are no reminders that they’re gay, unless their being gay is making them unhappy.
(Incidentally, I write a blog about classical music clichés, and I recently posted about erasure and LGBTQ composers, specifically Tchaikovsky, if anyone is interested.)
Well, Whammy, to be fair, gay people do keep on existing, no matter how hard they pray for them all to disappear. If there’s anything that more fits the mold of violent attack on their very identities, I’ve yet to hear it.
We would never bring politics into church of course.
FINE, here is the link I failed to embedd
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2014/comic/book-4/02-i-was-a-teenage-churchmouse/union/
Gaah, never noticed Chastity Churchmouse’s padlock before.
Hymmel just keeps giving, doesn’t it?
I want to know what they do in the CROOK ADORE.
I believe that is supposed to be “BOOK STORE”.
I like two-star’s version better.
Yes, Hank, these are your people. Can’t ignore it anymore, can you? 😛
Back in my days as an Episcopalian, we were encouraged to actually read the whole book, not just those chapters that adhered to a particular ideology.
As such, I got to understand that most of the time, Christ reacted to people failing to be as good as they could with either a bit of humor or with a benign disappointment.
There’s two instances in the Gospels, really, of him being actually angry. One is when he is tempted/taunted by Satan in the wilderness, and once is when he drives the merchants and moneylenders from the temple. In both cases, he uses the same word to explain his anger: “Hypocrite”.
I’m suspecting that Hank’s read those passages, too.
Going by Hank’s opinion of Ross, he hasn’t been ignoring them. That said, he might not actually take a stand here– this doesn’t seem like a battle he can actually win.
willis never shows christienz as anything but characatures and monsterzzzz waaah *flails arms inefectually*
TWAC used FLAIL. It’s not very effective.
😛
Is Flail ever effective?
As self-flagellation, maybe.
As defense only. It’s somewhat more effective than standing passively when used against frontal attacks.
But less effective than either Flee or Counter-Assail.
Well TV Tropes has Epic Flail.
Wazzzzzpinatoor haaaatteeess political correctnezzzzz.
Wazzzzpinator alzzzo hazzz zzztrong feelingzz about gun control.
Also pretty sure going by flashbacks, that Becky was below 18 when she had long hair, or at least just barely 18. In which case, good job random church goer, for mourning that fact that someone so young is no longer beautiful in your eyes like holy shit that’s not your business wow. That’s just creepy.
I don’t know if it was just a product of the particular flavor of awful I grew up around, but creepy pedophilic fetishization of young church women (to the point of some of the sects straight up shopping young (14) girls out to older men by their parents to try and see who would be their chosen husband).
And the comments by the older church men were definitely eye-raising when they went on about the rejuvenating powers of youth and how only the young still have that “innocence”.
And of course “she used to be so beautiful when she had the haircut she had when her mother lived. Wow, I wonder if her death affected her, somehow. Maybe we should offer her warmth and compassion or… nah, let’s nag about her haircut instead.”
Hank! He’s not awful!
“How dare she have an afro, sticking her RACE in our faces!”
“How dare they have long hair, sticking their GENDER IDENTITY in our faces!”
“How dare he wear a turban, sticking his RELIGION in our faces!”
Even when switch key words, the bigotry still sticks out like a sore thumb.
“How dare he paint his fingernails like a gender-norm non-conformist, sticking his thumbs in our fac-yeAARRRRGH!”
“…. oh, wait, that wasn’t a request?”
Reminds me of a Halloween costume I’ve worn.
+1
All I can think of is Len.
it’s amazing when the only thing you can focus on is the thing that points out that they’re different from you
…I think I did hear stuff like that about hairs and the stigma with girls daring to cut theirs.
Probably the comment section, possibly The Author’s tumblr. Hmm.
*can’t think, need coffee*
HANK SMASH!
….. dammit, someone said it before me.
You can never say it enough!
HANK SMAAAAAASH!!
Hmm. I said yerterday that I thought Joyce might snap, some time during or immediately after this service. But perhaps… just perhaps… the one who snaps will be Hank?
The family that snaps together . . .
That seems rather likely. He is a bit behind Joyce in the learning curve and never got Jocelyne’s pep talk.
I think Hank snapping will result in less property damage but much more severe burns.
I’d like to see Joyce snap first, in front of everyone, an have the congregation start in on her too, then have Hank step up behind everyone and just rain hellfire down on them all!
hank: “fight me bethany. i know you were in rehab last summer!”
Would they still complain about her hair if she wasn’t a lesbian but still had the same haircut? Probably would be my guess. It would be like that where I’m from. Religion would have had nothing to do with it either, just small rural town attitudes.
Still not performing femininity enough. People would Talk and Have Ideas about it. (Ie, that she was a lesbian, so…)
“Did you see her hair? That’s not normal, I wonder if she’s, you know…”
“I mean she does have that nice boy, maybe he’ll talk some sense into her.”
“I sure do hope so. I mean I always did wonder about him…”
I just don’t think so–or at least, not as much. Short hair has never been a problem in my church. The only thing I think might happen was that people would start rumors wondering if she were gay.
Would Toedad have pulled her out of school and then chased her down with a gun and kidnapped her if she wasn’t a lesbian, thus providing ample opportunity to use Becky’s hair as a way to justify-not-justify what Toedad did? Not Excusing That Butt is the second cousin to the Not Racist Butt. (Not Sexist Butt being the first cousin. :p)
If Becky had come home with long, “sweet-girl” hair like her mom was apparently forced to have, I would imagine the gossip would be “Maybe Toedad made a terrible mistake and the lesbian thing was just a misunderstanding and we can find Becky a nice, manly husband to prove it.”
I feel a major level-up coming on. And if Hank does what I think he’s about to do, he will have also opened up a serious lead in the “best dad” competition.
And how appropriate this strip appears right after Father’s Day.
If he does, it could land them all in hot water. I can see that happening; Joyce remembers her unknown sister’s advice to lie low, bottles up her rage, and then a moment later Hank explodes.
It would be consistent with the ways of The Willis.
CAROL is also listening through the door.
VOICE: “She used to be so beautiful.”
VOICE 2: “I know! And that dress! Goodness, you almost expect Super Mario to come bursting in here to rescue her at any moment…!”
CAROL: “Forehead lines aligned and engaged.“
+1
+1+1+1
“Still, what can you expect, poor thing, without a mother to dress her.”
Cue Carol!Rage
I’m so mad at these disembodied voices. They can go fuck themselves.
Fuck themselves? Would it make you feel better if I told you that what they’re doing now is a little bit like masturbation?
Without their bodies? I don’t see how that can work.
…..so where should I start on this, all I know first off REALLY Carroll a gun !? Could you be anymore inconsiderate.
Let’s fucking hope we never find out.
I think we may confidently expect Carol to roll out the whole nine yards of insensitivity and bigotry.
It’s interesting because Joyce and Hank are both going through a similarly eye-opening experience about the people around them. Go get ’em, Hank.
Yup. He said as much about the fountain incident. I’m glad it didn’t stop there.
If Hank is REALLY, REALLY good, listens to his heart and keeps making the right-but-hard choices, he may keep not only one but THREE daughters. That is worth some internal anguish.
Indeed. Hank’s journey may end up devastating Joyce’s home life more though, especially if Carol reacts poorly to his views on certain issues, which I am sure will come up. But hey…Amber’s mom is still single. *waggles eyebrows*
Wow. Spot-on dialogue. It’s that perfect level of understated bigotry.
Carol, joyfully talking about murdering living beings. I doubt the line Willis keeps drawing from Ross to her is unintentional.
“I wish you got yourself a gun, Hank. Couldn’t you be more like someone we know who owns a gun…. on a completely unrelated topic, I think you should pull your daughter from school and be more firm with lesbians.”
Somehow I think you are right.
She’s Toedad without the violence, using words instead of fists to cut and threaten. Making sure there’s just an air of menace that dissuades any attempt at rebellious youth shenanigans.
I also love how, when actually faced with a lesbian, the congregation (and Carol) can’t do anything but gossip.
And we need to remember that Carol is really passive-aggressive. It’s been shown that she believes that men are active and women are subservient to them. She has never said anything directly to Becky or Joyce. That was JOHN. He was the one that LITERALLY BRUSHED IT ASIDE when Joyce told him that she had a gun in her face. He was the one that LITERALLY TOLD BECKY IT WAS HER FAULT that Ross did what he did.
Carol is very, very passive.
Oh, Carol’s brought out the barbs against Becky, but she’s been slick about it, only coming out swinging directly when Becky and her are alone together:
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-6/02-that-perfect-girl/icebreaker/
And being more generally, oh, dearie me just making general conversation to the table about recent events when everyone is around.
But yeah, very big on the passive-aggressive versus the active aggression and dismissal of John.
I think it’s also really interesting how so many of them have avoided addressing Becky directly. Even Hank who’s been turning this new leaf has spoken far more about Becky when she was nowhere near than he has actively addressed her and checked in on her.
It really emphasizes how this whole culture outside of Joyce and Jocelyne view Becky more as a prop to stand in for a “gay people spiritually preying on Christians” “debate” than any actual person.
Murder is generally considered the killing of a fellow human, nor squirrels. They tend to rate as vermin, food, or cute.
Just get some mouse traps. Put them where cats and dogs cant get to them. Kills ground squirrels dead. Killed 16 of them when they were destroying our garden and burrowing under the sidewalk last year. 3-4 are cute. 20 or more are a nuisance.
We had an infestation of ground squirrels on our property in Florida but then a family of owls built a nest near the driveway and porked out on them.
But what did you do about the owls?
The owls were fairly good neighbors. Didn’t have a problem with them.
The sign says “Look Whore”?
They put me to workin’ in the school BOOK STORE
Checkout counter and I got bored
Teachers were looking for me all around
Two hours later you know where I was found
SMOKIN’ IN THE BOYS ROOM…
So glad someone else knows that song!
*watches Becky steal the toupee off a man’s head*
Is the “them” Joyce and Becky? Or is the “them” Joyce’s Family + Becky? If it’s the former do “they” (the disembodied voices) think that Joyce and Becky are together? Questions to ponder.
That’s a good point, the community they grew up in would be well aware of how close joyce and becky were growing up, and now that Becky’s openly gay (and tagging along with the browns), it wouldn’t take too much mental gymnastics to draw the conclusion that joyce is gay as well. After all, what godfearing Christian would be supportive of homosexuality if they weren’t gay too? That would be silly.
That’s pretty much how the speculation works. When everyone thought I was a gay male, my male best friend was presumed to be gay as well because he stood up for me. Apparently a similar thing happened to my ex when she got outed as bi where they presumed that all of her friend circle must be lesbians “as well”.
DESTROY.
That is an “Oh, hell no!” face if I’ve ever seen one. Something tells me though that he will sit through church slowly getting angrier, and finally, when they get home decide to start looking for another church. This then proves to be the final straw that breaks the back of his and Carol’s marriage, John takes Carol’s side, and Hank ends up getting back in touch with the estranged Jordan while trying, and sometimes failing because failures and mistakes are inevitable for a human being, to be the best supportive father and father figure he can. At least, this is what my hopeful optimism believes.
Sad how your optimism involves a family torn apart. Well, if it’s toxic, it’s toxic.
I think it’s because I’m generally cynical of familial relationships that are toxic. At that point, people just stop being family. And sometimes it’s for the best. It definitely was for my family. And after a few years of estrangement new, healthy relationships were able to be formed. I would also like to seriously apologize if I come across as passive aggressive with this comment. I want to give an explanation, and text is a very hard medium to do that in properly. And also if this reply sounds jaded or offensive, as it is not my intention to do that.
No, I got it. Just big on families is all. Just sad when things can’t work out. Even more so when that’s the optimal course. It should never get there.
I believe Hank will have to leave Carol. She’s bigoted, bitter, self-righteous, narrow-minded, and unloving. She is one of many hateful and intolerant so-called Christians, similar to those who felt the victims of the gay club massacre deserved injury and death. I doubt that Hank has ever felt glee upon anyone’s suffering, and I am almost sure that schadenfreude for so-called sinners is very frequent for Carol. I get the feeling that love and tolerance is natural for Hank. He is growing spiritually and Carol is not. Unless Carol is capable of making a huge change, which I doubt, I can’t see that the Browns will have a future together.
I wonder how those judgy gossips feel about separation of church and state.
Depends. Are we talking about separation of church and state where the church is protected from the state, or the separation of church and state where the state is protected from the church, or the separation of church and state where the church takes over the state and calls it religious freedom a la Kim Davis?
I hope the Church never takes over the state.
By the way, why is the Pope such a powerful man?
What’s the big deal with Becky’s hair? It wasn’t even that long before she shaved it. Heck I think Danny’s was longer.
It wasn’t that long because she already sabotaged following her god-defined role by “accidentally” getting super-glue in her hair.
Just so we’re clear here: When my grandmother first came home from college with her hair cut short (not with an undercut, dear lord this was the 60s, but just cut at ALL much less SHORT), my great-grandmother cried because she thought her daughter was going to go to hell. My great-grandmother lived until 2005, and while she did eventually get over her daughters getting haircuts (I don’t think ANY of my great-aunts have had long hair for over twenty years at least) she never cut her hair until the day she died. (Also wore a prayer covering all the time.) When I’m at places where the same not-quite-Amish-borderline-Plain Pennsylvania Dutch sect we’re from is more common, I still see girls my age wearing Appropriately Modest Skirts and their hair pinned back under their prayer coverings.
Different sect, but this is real, people.
(I’m lucky enough that most of my exposure to this brand of religion was nonetheless the gentle quiet mostly positive type, but it is in fact A Real Thing.)
Various things here :
“I’m not excusing that.” Well, no, you kind of are. When you’re comparing “kidnapping and assault with a firearm” to “got a kinda-butch haircut”,you’re pretty much excusing it, or at the least trivializing the fuck out of it.
“I just don’t think church should be a place for politics.” And your very existence is political, so get out. Real nice, blue-hair. (I’m assuming. I’m aware that my assumptions are rooted in Texas gossiping old church ladies, so bear with me.)
“She used to be so beautiful.” Code for “DAMN, maybe I’m more towards the middle of the Kinsey spectrum than I thought. Wonder if she brimps.”
(And no, I understand – it’s not masked desire, it’s just nasty intolerance.)
I am sometimes very, VERY glad that I was raised under Extremely-Reform Judaism.
All of this is on point. “Your very existence is political”, exactly, damn. ‘We don’t mind if you’re different, just don’t flaunt it’, is the kind of thing these people say, except existing and not being ashamed -IS- flaunting it.
this. x.x
Very, very true. And we have seen from Carol what Becky can do to “flaunt it” and “be too much Becky”: EXISTING.
This. It’s a justification for violence and attack, because it makes the marginalized person at fault for “making the first strike”. If they “flaunted it”, “shoved it in your face”, then of course, you were justified to attack and scream and hurt the person for existing.
And all while telling yourself that you don’t actually hate X, just the uppity ones who just throw it in your face and expect you to like them and approve of them. And it’s not bigotry. It’s not!
The “it’s their fault for making me bigoted by THROWING IT IN MY FACE” crowd is painfully similar to the “LOOK WHAT YOU’RE MAKING ME DO TO YOU” brand of abuse. We can’t possibly be expected to avoid being cruel to other people when we’re PUSHED like that! (Other cheek? no, that only counts toward people who are… um… LOOK IT JUST DOESN’T COUNT HERE.)
Oh very much so. And is reflected also in this particular flavor of Christianity and its fixation on a God figure whose wrath you must avoid long enough to make it to the Rapture, rather than a genuinely loving being.
That abuser’s logic is so potent and reverberates so thoroughly and must make a lot of sense to those who perpetuate it.
alla this.
That alt-text makes me *evil grin* in the worst way.
For me it was when I saw the last panel. Pass the fuckin popcorn.
That is definitely an, “Oh HELL naw.” face if I’ve ever seen one.
“But it looked SO NICE before, why did you have to change it?”
“Because I wanted to and I don’t exist to please you jerks?”
“Man, how obnoxious!”
*little girls voice* “I thought that maybe, if I made myself different enough, my father would not recognize me when he came hunting for me with a gun. It di.. didn’t work”
“Turns out my hair is like a signal flare in a midnight sea…”
I wonder where those commenters have gone now. I wonder if they know that Willis sees them. That their tears fuel him.
They moved to Joyce’s church apparently.
“And do you know what I hear? She apparently spent a 20 someone gave her on that haircut.”
“Scandalous”
dangit bagge i wanted to make that joke
I love Hank so much for that face right there.
I know, this is such a positive sign that he’s starting to go the full Joyce. He’s been “tolerating” Becky up to now, but getting angry on her behalf, seeing her as a human and that shit as awful as it is? That’s him genuinely supporting her. If he nurtures that, then they and maybe hopefully Jocelyne will at least still have a dad out of all this.
Alrighty Hank, this is a real chance to earn some more respect from us commenters so don’t you go and blow it!
Hmmmm, yaaaas, enforce behavioral conformity through threatened peer pressure.
Some human behaviors, it’s really really hard to break the habit/pattern. A lot of people just settle for finding new acceptable targets.
Am I in the wrong here?
Damn, what kind of stuck up church is that? I mean, it’s just hair. The only time I even saw hair even close to Becky’s was -at- church. Nobody bothered to dress themselves up much at school, except for prom or homecoming. You know, except the occasional girl who was trying to get laid. Wasn’t hard, though. My school was famous for being ‘friendly’, apparently.
If your church is big on gender norms, it probably cares about hair. I know people from churches where cutting hair at all was a big deal. For women, anyway.
I understand that the comment about her hair is more a religious intolerance thing, but honestly I’ve always felt it looked pretty weird too. Not exactly sure what it’s supposed to be, maybe if I saw a picture of an actual person with the intended hairstyle?
That said, I probably shouldn’t be talking. I would post a picture, but no. I’m not going to post a picture.
I’m just going to assume that Jason said that. “What, remove my bowtie? Well, of course, if I’m putting on a DIFFERENT one….”
http://i.imgur.com/VvGDJEb.jpg Like this, I think?
Rad
This, but red:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/cf/ee/00/cfee00836d787c3d1f50feac3002c7a7.jpg
It’s a common style in younger and more alternative girl’s communities and has been worn by a few wlw celebrities, so it’s seen in a similar vein as the pixie cut was in the 90s.
Double Rad
I have pretty much this hairstyle, but how it manages with ethnic hair, and no one gives me any flack about it or thought I was a lesbian.
Why is this weird? I think it’s very pretty.
I don’t know you, but I’m willing to bet you are Rad.
Ooooh Looks like Hank is about to join the rest of us sinners, question is, will the meltdown happen in church or the dinner table?
Here.
Other comments beyond the “y’all are already questioning if this is a thing so let me step in since my religious abuse was purely self-inflicted shit I’m not sure where I internalized and so I’m otherwise distanced enough to say: Yes, this is indeed A Thing” step in: Hank, if you end up Actually Saying Something this time, my opinion of you might actually rise. Hopefully this is actually opening your eyes a bit to this stuff too? Just a touch? (Because dammit if there is any potential for Jocelyne’s coming out to be less traumatic I want it to be.)
Carol… hoo boy. Willis, I know you’ve talked a bit about how you’re not really in contact with your mom anymore and I have all the sympathy for you, and if this kind of casual-but-blaring warning sign is autobiographical too, here’s another helping dollop of it. Either way, that is just. Such a thing, given the week they’ve been through.
Everything else: Even separated from the religious context, still way too familiar to me for comfort. Augh, it’s always so awful.
yeah, this is getting acutely painful.
Microaggressions suck so hard. Especially a whole ton of them together like this.
Seriously! And he captures it so painfully well. Right up to the casual dismissal of genuine awfulness by one’s community and family as if nearly getting killed or getting threatened with reparative therapy was normal.
Seriously reliving my teen years and early twenties. This is a little too real.
It’s constant and it’s everywhere and it’s so exhausting and painful and my sympathies, friend.
Hank’s limit break is ready!
http://i.imgur.com/8hGGWS0.png
That’s so kawaii!
AWESOME!!!!!
nice
I don’t want to overstate this greatness, but you might actually be the best thing to ever happen to the universe.
YES! YES!
(Also, the sparkles loaded before the rest of the image and now I’m wondering what kind of Goku Uniforms the cast would wear if they attended Honnouji Academy.)
heck
I teared up at the last panel…
Ready for some table flipping.
Are you hoping for some whip cracking on the side?
In my head, he’s already in some Dom gear and ready for the sexy whip cracking.
I just pictured that. It was great. Then I pictured Joyce’s reaction to that. The level of greatness rose exponentially.
It feels like it’s coming.
Or, at least, it feels like it’s deserved.
“I know he threatened her and her friends with a gun, but she had the audacity to cut her hair!”
Also, gotta love how the very act of existing when you’re gay is political. What politics did I bring here? My haircut and my Kinsey 26?
I’m gonna have to assume you meant 2.6, because considering the Kinsey scale goes from 0 to 6, a 26 must be some sort of post-critical mass black hole of gayness.
Becky is, in fact, a post-critical mass black hole of gayness.
Ha, my memory actually pegged Becky one higher on the scale than the post-critical mass black hole of gayness that she claimed to be.
All RIGHT! Tomorrow we’re going to see Hank lay down some righteous —
… crap, it’s going to be Dina and Carla or something, isn’t it?
I for one would love to see Dina and Carla interact.
I second that.
I’ve been hoping for that for some time. I think they could hit it off.
Probably a lot of off screen prep will be needed
Feels like it will be great in the, “He prepped this” way
Oh oh no, shit’s going down, bracing for impact… the uncomfortable meteor of realisation is hitting so bad
its honestly so comforting to see joyces dad opening up his worldview as its challenged instead of digging in his heels especially when i know my own dad would never
luv u hank <3<3<3 good work
“Having a gun pointed at you by your own dad is bad and all, but that hair is the real crime”
… Are you sure? Are you sure about that, random church person?
Well, obviously. It’s simple. They have to dismiss gunman and the gay girl, but the gay girl is here and the gunman did the “right” thing according to the faith, so cry some crocodile tears about how you clearly didn’t mean for anyone to do that, but at least he’s repentant in prison and his soul is saved from the momentary madness his daughter’s betrayal caused.
But the gay girl? She’s still claiming to be gay, meaning she is still openly sinning. And in church too. It’s just not right.
Bob damn do I wish I didn’t have as much personal experience with shitheads like this than I do.
Aaaaand in the next round of Church or Daughters, what will Haaaaank chooose?
They’re clearly talking about Sinead O’Connor. Definitely not anyone else.
Jennifer#2.
They lost Hannah Montana and gotten Miley Cirus instead!
It’s not even a particularly radical hairstyle. Asymmetry, oh the humanity! It’s not like she shaved it all off and painted her scalp lime green.
Maybe they confused it with this: youtube.com/watch?v=YrK4WpfmVjI
The joy of sects. How ‘forgiving’ Xians can be so petty and judgemental never fails to amuse me. WWJD? He’d probably throw you out of the temple with the moneylenders.
It might amuse me how your own remark is very judgemental also.
I have had personal experience with the petty and judgemental actions of a lot of churches/religions not just Christian. But they are at the top of the list.
The least prejudiced may be mine (of course 🙂 ): I’m Wicca.
Can I vote for Unitarian Universalists as “least-prejudiced religion”? All the ones I’ve ever met have been incredibly laid-back people, and most seem to summarize their basic religious views as “don’t be an asshole, and also help the planet, and maybe be actually actively helpful instead of passively not a jerk” [quote from a UU friend of mine, but edited to remove some of the vulgarities].
I grew up in a UU church and it was really more about the community and upholding ideals than religion. In RE (Religious Education) we mostly discussed the histories of various religions, youth group activities, trying to uphold good ideals and identify harmful ideals, etc. And I do mean discussion, we had a leader but they would keep us on track instead of preaching at us. The church itself held weekly and monthly meetings for different LGBTQ groups. I was never into the whole God thing past age 6 and I was never called names or told I didn’t belong there, only that I was a valued member of the community (wish I could say the same for outside of church). I mean, not much point in arguing what religion is better, but I feel I gotta stump for the people who gave me a needed positive output in my childhood.
I don’t know if it was the same for every church, but I still remember the song used to usher the children to their respective RE groups: Go now in peace, go now in peace. May the spirit of love surround you, everywhere, everywhere you may go.
A Wiccan girl I used to date is the fiercest bigot I’ve ever met. She couldn’t so much as walk past a church without making suggestions of desecrating or razing it, because she had a grudge against some Christians who’d screwed over her education in the pursuit of ‘punishing a heathen.’
*chants* hank hank hank Hank Hank Hank HANK
Come on Hank, grow a pair, and keep them. Long since past time you stopped co-existing with your bongo wife to keep the peace,
Stand up for your own beliefs, not just trying to be protector of the kids.
You can do it.
I’d feel really bad for Hank, he’s going through a difficult thing, except. You know. It’s so much worse for Becky.
I think that’s a thing that Willis has been pretty good at showing in this arc. Becky is obviously the one who has experienced the most grief in this situation, but it has affected everyone in different ways.
After everything that happened, I think Joyce would BSOD if her folks had a gun…
I have high hopes for Hank to do the right thing. Don’t let me down, Hank.
aw shit, here it comes
(Happy Father’s Day)
I remember back when Becky first showed up, people were upset at her for prioritizing getting a haircut above everything else — even food and clothes.
I’m starting to understand it more now. These people use long hair as a symbol of female submission to the teachings of their church. To cut off her hair was an extreme act of defiance. It was Becky’s way of saying she wasn’t going to hide anymore.
Yup, it was her finally being herself and it was a powerful act of defiance and pride. Her being comfortable and “more Becky” and splitting once and for all with the cage of how she was “supposed ta” end up.
It was incredibly emotionally necessary, though even if it was just a luxury, a luxury was something she needed in that moment too. Something to counter all the awful happening all at once.
With all this bigotry behind closed doors, I feel like we’re all forgetting the REAL problem: the ground squirrels ARE coming back. They’re not afraid of the dog anymore. They’re coming for our blood. And our acorns, but that’s beside the point.
IF ONLY THERE WAS A SUPER HERO WITH SQUIRREL BASED POWERS!!!
SHADE TAIL WILL SAVE US!
I’m now imagining all sorts of wacky scenarios of Grace negotiating with ground squirrels.
”As apology, they want you to build a couple of statues for them.”
Aren’t ground squirrels just another name for chipmunks? If so, then wouldn’t this instead be a job for Chipmunk Hunk?
Why is the squirrel-tag missing on this comic?
Because “ground squirrels” are actually chipmunks.
Wait, they’re not called “fuckin’ chippies” or “damn chippies” in Indiana? O.o That state is weird, man. XP (J/K, for those who didn’t pick up on it. XP)
They are saving those as insults for cyberpunks with their neurosocket implants.
I get the feeling Mr. Brown is about to earn more Cool Dad points. Here’s hoping I’m not misreading this.
Comic Reactions:
Panel 1: It’s been mentioned before, but holy fucking shit is Carol just awful. Like, she’s hateful and bigoted and prioritizes her faith over people, but right here she reveals that she’s taken literally nothing out of this affair other than her daughter’s “immorality” in choosing a lesbian over her God.
Like, the shooting might as well have never occurred for her. Literally doesn’t register for her. She doesn’t think, huh, my daughter’s just been threatened with a gun by her best friend’s dad, maybe I shouldn’t make jokes about my husband owning a gun and casually using it about the home. Because in her mind, the shooting was just a backdrop for the real tale of how Joyce sassed back to her mother and how wrong that was.
It’s just so twisted of a morality and it’s even worse to know that her bits are the most autobiographical in the whole comic. *All the hugs for Willis* for growing up with that.
Panel 2: “better here than somewhere else”. Yes, that is the conundrum for the bigots isn’t it. They can’t abide her here, because by existing here she undoes so much of their intentional dehumanization of the gays in their eyes and thus is an “affront”. But they’re still supposed to be in the business of saving souls and so they wouldn’t want at least to be seen hoping they’d be somewhere else losing their eternal souls to Satan.
And that pregnant pause, so they can both imagine the depths of sin that the dirty lesbian gets up to.
And that second line about “saying something”, cause of course, you would never turn them out, not ever, just maybe, let them know that this isn’t the best place for them and make sure they understand that they really shouldn’t be coming back here where they can confuse their ironclad morals with their nasty existing. And of course both voices see them as a they.
At best they see them as a couple. At worst, the simple act of supporting a queer person is seen as as big a sin as being gay. Both would be awful.
Panel 3: And that’s the rhythm of it isn’t it? They have to excuse it. Because by their scripture, he did everything right. He did what they should do if they truly believed the rhetoric they spill out about the gays. And so they can’t truly condemn it, because this is the blood that makes the machine crush on and lets all the young’uns thinking about “going gay” know that they should think twice and instead just be the nice little props they need to be.
So, it is a given that they were always going to excuse it, but it’s also a monstrous thing to support openly, so this thin veneer is placed over it. And the “they were shoving it in my face” is a tried and true justification from way back.
Hell, it was even the justification the Orlando shooter’s father gave for why he did it. Even though he sought it out and staked out the club for weeks. Still it was “shoved in his face” and just “enraged him so”.
And it’s what makes this whole section just cut like a knife, because we all know that if we ever face violence, this is the type of shit some community somewhere will spout to justify it. It’s what I heard from my parents when I told them about nearly getting killed for being trans. And it’s disgusting.
Panel 5: This has been ripped to shreds, but “politics” is such a neat little package for the lives of the marginalized. The very lives of the marginalized and hated are “political” and controversial, and so must be banned from the airwaves and banned from speaking on their behalf, because none should be seen “choosing one side over the other” in a “political debate”.
Sure one side just wants to exist and the other wants to eliminate them one way or another, but they’re sides nonetheless and only one is really “political” when you think about it, after all, we’d have no problem with it if they weren’t trying to make everything so political all the time and attacking our religious right to despise them.
Panel 6: There are not enough cold showers for how many levels this is disgusting on. The creepy reference to an underaged version of Becky as “beautiful”. The lament that she has somehow lost that “beauty” simply because she didn’t grow up as they would demand. The treatment of their ability to tune out her existence as trumping that of Becky’s right to exist. The way it ties into toxic ideas of femininity and the expectation of young women to simply be attractive pieces of decoration to eventually win a husband.
Just on every level, it drips with the banality of evil like every ounce of this gossip. This is how the church folks gossip about one of their own nearly murdering two young girls.
And Hank seems to have just been hit with that and finally realizes how fucked up the casualness has truly been.
He may yet disappoint me as he’s got a large hole of trained bias he’s been raised in, but I think the fire in his belly has been stoked and he’s going to be a lot less willing to accept the bullshit willingly than he might have a night or two ago.
That’s really the heart of it that you point out, that under this awefullness, these snide remarks, this distancing from Becky and “her kind” is A MAN WHO HUNTED HIS CHILD WITH A GUN.
ONE OF THEIR OWN.
ONE WHO FOLLOWED THEIR OWN DOCTRINE
AND THEY CAN’T BRING THEMSELVES TO CONDEMN IT.
They don’t even say. “You know, gays are really bad but let’s agree that you shouldn’t hunt children with guns, OK.” They have to go the opposite way and say “hunting children is bad and all, but you know, gaaaaaay.”. Way to prioritize.
“And that pregnant pause, so they can both imagine the depths of sin that the dirty lesbian gets up to.”
I couldn’t resist going back to the strip with dirty lesbians getting up to sin (with a godless heathen, no less).
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2015/comic/book-6/01-to-those-whod-ground-me/appraisal/
Not to mention one of those dirty lesbians being Asian, so you also have racism in play if these church people were to find out.
Oh, very much so, lest we forget Toedad’s preferred terminology for “Asian”:
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2015/comic/book-6/01-to-those-whod-ground-me/deceptress/
That last panel is definitely *the worst*. So much about women in this society is that they’re only valuable due to outside appreciation, and then they have the nerve to hold that approval over her head like this. Fuck that.
The worst thing about being lesbian for them, since it doesn’t have so much of the ick factor of being mxm gay (they probably appreciate lesbo porn if they appreciate porn at all), is that it removes a woman from the pool that the local guys get to choose from. That’s part of what they mean by that remark. She’s not trying to appeal to them anymore, and that’s a damn shame to them. She’s no longer their collective property, because she’s freed from having to be what they’re attracted to, as a defining part of who she is. And so they hide behind a door and bellyache about it. Fuck that.
There’s several more layers of fuck that, but those two were the strongest for me.
“It’s what I heard from my parents when I told them about nearly getting killed for being trans.”
Just, wow. That’s every kind of awful. I’m sorry you had to go through that.
*appropriate online gesture of sympathy*
Great analysis, as always.
*hug* I’m so so sorry.
all of this.
-offers hugs to you- i’m so sorry for what you’ve gone through.
it’s the quiet malice that’s so deadly, i think. the silent permission.
well i mean obviously not more deadly than Actual Violence. but like about what Carol’s doing
Do be a hero Cooldad! Go kick some bigoted ass!
*Dad kicks the door open*
THE FUDGE YOU SAY ?
Hank: “EFF YOU MOTHEREFFER.”
Joyce: “You are new to this, dad, let me show you how it is done.” *deep breath*
Next panel. Church is burnt down, everyone wanders around with shell shocked expression.
Hank: “where have you learnt that language, young woman?”
Burnt down? Did that devil-cartoon of hers include MAGIC LESSONS?!
(I wish I could pretend people who actually believe stuff like that didn’t exist)
I can imagine that you’re making the same expression as your avatar.
I don’t know why, but this hit me hard… I’m glad that Hank is who he is (so far).
Carol never fails to disappoint – shows up only in the background of one single panel, still manages to fulfill the horribleness quota for a week.
She’s on the same page like the engineer from TF2 when it comes to solving practical problems.
That is the look of a man who is getting tired of someone’s shit.
I think that Hank is about to pull someone’s head off and use it as a basketball. Probably only in a metaphorical way, though!
I saw that movie!
TFW you overhear a conversation and every sentence just gets worse and worse and worse even though it’s already bad….
Me:
…”used to be beautiful?” isn’t that exceptionally creepy to say about someone who (just recently turned?) 18?
No. It really isn’t. If she was getting married at 18, and was in makeup and a dress and the whole thing, would it be creepy to say she’s beautiful? I think everyone is attributing creepiness to it because Carol is horrible.
I find it creepy too, and it’s not at all because of Carol because the only thing she said in this strip is that her husband should get a gun. Someone else in the congregation is talking about how beautiful Becky the minor with long hair was.
welp, yes. I think it is. 1) because it implies ownership of her beauty. Becky is someone to consume/be consumed by this person, based on how well she conforms to gender roles. 2) owning herself, unconforming to gender roles, makes her less beautiful in the eye of this beholder. 3) it’s a ranking of her value to this beholder. she’s seen as disfigured because she did something as silly as cut her own hair. god, i wonder how much more disfigured she would be if her dad had accidentally shot off her ear or something.
like beauty as a concept is inherently kind of creepy: it puts a predesignated value on the combination of certain characteristics in conjunction with each other when those combinations are determined by genetics and chance. it’s socially bound and changes. all you have to do is look at a tabloid about how this female celebrity is definitely pregnant because they gained a couple pounds, or how that female celebrity has a couple wrinkles and now deserves to be shunned from society.
or check out the Disney princess freeware games where someone with too much time on their hands decided to make Elsa pregnant or give Belle zits and warts so that you can do medical surgery and “fix” them. because, like, let’s be real here, Disney princesses are the ideal feminine standard in America. it’s not a coincidence that they started out with Snow White, fairest of them all, whose villain is a woman approaching middle age who hates her because she’s prettier. because society at large can and will boil down a woman’s worth to how pretty she is. not what she does with her life: just how well she conforms to their idea of what a woman ought to be.
/endrant
Yep. Grown adults policing what a child looks like. Plus, from personal experience, they have probably never acknowledged her “beauty” until her haircut. (there’s a difference between saying “you look so pretty today, Becky” and having “beauty” be a trait associated with you)
I’m glad I never talked to anyone in my hometown church.
Oh Hank, please tell me you’re about to prove you’re the man/father/friend I hope you are.
“She used to be so beautiful.”
“Yeah, now she’s just plain friggin’ hot.”
“And did you know that haircut cost twenty dollars? The nerve, I swear!”
Oh, and in case you missed the subtext, Hank – it could have been Joyce they talked about, if SHE had been the gay one. It WILL be Joyce they talk about if she does something suitably dramatic in defence of her friend.
i dont see why you want to tell him that, hes obviously getting angry about the people who are talking
Mainly I just taking out my frustration on a fictional character, but I also want to remind him that sometimes “almost” is not good enough.
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-6/02-that-perfect-girl/occasionally/
Notice the constant use of the pronoun ‘they’. The unknown curtain-twitcher is definitely talking about Becky and Joyce. Maybe the current scuttlebutt is that Joyce is Becky’s lover or something. Because, from what everyone has been saying, that’s more or less how they’ve been acting around each-other for years!
o-o-o-o-o….
OK, when you read the rest of my comments, keep in mind that I UNDERESTIMATED the awfulness that was going on here.
This. And yeah, I think you’re right that the “consensus” is either that Joyce is Becky’s lover, because “there’s always been something about those girls” and “why would she defend her if she wasn’t that way too” or that simply being gay-supportive might as well be interchangeable or just as bad as being gay yourself.
I got that impression too, that whomever is talking is including Joyce in their conversation about ‘they’.
It’s going to be Hank they talk about if he doesn’t toe the party line. Time for a new church.
Meanwhile, the ground squirrels are dancing to Kenny Loggins.
Nobody remembered the ground squirrels except for you.
You must now be their spokesperson.
*whips out folding chair, readies comedic foam ‘We’re #1 finger,’ deploys nachos* Oh this thing, this thing right here? This is going to be *good.*
Christ, no, church jagweed, Becky’s new haircut CAN GET IT.
It looks so amazing on her, and much more flattering than her old style.
Every lady I see rockin’ that cut looks sexy as fuck.
^ This. Even *I* looked sexy as fuck wearing it, and I am not sexy as fuck in any way, shape or form. LOL Even had a random dude yell “I love your haircut!” at the gas station. XD
Story Time!
I was raised in Bill Gothard’s ATI homeschooling curriculum (the same guy the Duggars worship). There were exceptionally detailed guidelines, with illustrations, relayed AS OFFICIAL DOGMA, regarding women’s hair. I tried to google the illustrated pages in question, but I couldn’t find them and it’s way past my bedtime, so screw it.
I’m not talking basic stuff, like “long hair is the glory of a woman”. No, I mean a creepy amount of detail. It should be styled this particular way, be this particular length, etc., etc.
It was one of those moments when Gothard was finally caught sexually abusing teenage girls, I looked back and thought… “Oh. Yeah. Seems really freaking obvious now.” He was so obsessed with the women in his cult looking just the way he liked them.
So yeah. Seeing non-conforming hairstyles as a sign of ungodliness is a totes real thing.
Story Time Over!
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/25/these-are-north-koreas-28-state-approved-hairstyles/ ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7873621/Iran-government-issues-style-guide-for-mens-hair.html because “Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes” and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/05/iran-bans-devil-worshipping-homosexual-hairstyles
Oh, wait. Wrong country. Sorry.
O_O
Okay, so I guess I guess I have to give up on this church being small-ish. I’ve never heard of any church having a book store that isn’t near megachurch levels.
On the plus side, this means people should be in less of a lockstep against them. On the down side, it means that this church is run the same way John runs his missions.
General rule of thumb: The more ostentatiously “welcoming” and “inclusive” a church tries to appear (big building, youth pastor, guitars at the service-in-the-round, web site and all that — the more unimaginatively and simplisticly judgmental its members are — often beyond the wildest dreams of the church “elders”. We get you in, we take your mind.
I think that you might be misunderstanding. Not ‘book store’ as in ‘retail establishment for selling books’, rather ‘book store’ as in ‘store room for books’. I doubt that it is much larger than a broom cupboard!
I think this might be a megachurch.
I question whether La Porte is big enough to have a megachurch.
Many of the small churches I’ve experienced had some sort of “Library”, “Reading Room”, or “Book Store”. It’s often just a small collection of books kept in the office of the Minister.
But yeah, Becky goes to a MegaChurch. It’s the only possibility.
I know Joyce was home-schooled, but many churches have schools associated with them and in some cases share the same building or are otherwise attached. So I see this as your typical church and school combined, and the room is the “bookstore” for the school where the kids can get necessary supplies like their pens, pencils, spiral notebooks, filler paper, and Chick tracts.
it could be, like, somewhere between a megachurch and a small church. it’s small enough that Joyce and Becky know everybody, but big enough that there are six Jennifers plus four other kids around their age. that’s pretty rare for a small church, they don’t really invite a lot of young people.
anyways, that book store is not particularly inviting? like most of the ones i’ve seen had glass doors/walls so you could see the inventory from outside, or at least had the door open. i don’t imagine that they get a lot of traffic. or maybe they just don’t have the money to remodel.
Yeah they have >10 kids exactly the same educational year that Joyce wanted to see- and honestly this isn’t even thinking on kids their age they’re not excited to see at all. Could be a few more. Heck maybe that girl who kind of half disappears in the background and you keep forgetting about. The two boys who always kept to themselves and scowled at people until being elbowed by their mums. Who knows.
Honestly in the church I was brought up in you needed to group the three older years together to make 10 kids really from what I remember when I was one of them. It had def over 100 people I think in it? So with pure assumptions in my head I think this church has at least 300 people maybe. So maybe slightly bigger than most of the churches americans are in (most according to wikipedia attend those with less than 200 people). But nah not nec a mega church. For one thing while it was a minor picture shot zoomed close to the door: the church building doesn’t seem that big?
Even with two services- well some attend both, some only one. I’m thinking with both services counting everyone it’s /probably/ 400 tops for members or something like that. It depends on whether the Browns were a special case for attending both or not.
Like there’s schools with more people than that who know all the students at least by face and they’d have known this place their whole lives- hell they’re all homeschooled so this was all their non family community and only interactions with people outside the family home. So not really a mega church but still enough to be ‘mega uncomfortable’ when things take that turn for the worse. Even with several hundred people, if it’s the only people you know outside of blood relatives, you’ll get most of them down.
All those people Joyce and Becky probably considered being like aunts and uncles once….
My synagogue had a cabinet “book store” that had some religious explanation books/coloring books, and also things like Hanukkah candles, and other small Jewish paraphernalia that would be hard to find locally.
Is this unusual?
off topic, i cant wait for mike to be in this comic more cause im totally in love with him
I kinda wish Mike were here, actually.
Fists. Everywhere.
Same!!! I also agree with Falling Star, Mike would be a great addition here. I know Mike will be back eventually because preview panels on tumblr, and I’m excited!
Why isn’t Hank in the poll?
Always makes me chuckle when people think what they do isn’t politics just cause it’s propping up existing power structures.
Same. Except instead of chuckling, I get broody.
You know, for people who probably think catholics are of the devil, the people behind the door are remarkable Pope-like:
“Well, the Hebdo attacks were terrible, sure, but, I mean, I totally understand them. I mean, those DRAWINGS!”
I’m also not a fan of the hair, but fuuuuuck, people, scale! When faced with haricuts you dislike, the correct response is to say “I don’t like it” if asked for an opinion, not gun-toting, though, to be fair, gun-toting seems to be the USAmerican response to pretty much everything.
I’d like every damn proselytiser to remember their complains about “shoving who they are in our faces” (which, full disclaimer, unless Becky actually starts kissing girls in church, that’s… not what she’s doing?), and keep your fucking religion to yourself. No, I’m not interested to hear about your fairy tales – also, if it’s from 2000 years ago, it’s not “news.” Learn what words mean.
I also think that church isn’t a place for politics, but not as much as I think that politics aren’t a place for religion. We’ve gotten rid of a pretty high volume of it over here (not all, but work in progress), and I’m sure every half-way decent USAmerican would like you to do the same over there, too. So, all those anti-abortion and anti-QUILTBAG (question: is this term frowned upon? I remember it from a couple of years ago, and, honestly, it’s pretty much the only way I can be sure to not forget any letters) laws? Kindly shove them up your asses.
Finally (this may be the longest post I’ve ever written here, made longer by this parentheses, so I’m gonna shut it now), I like how the speakers are not seen. Maybe it’s intentional, maybe it isn’t, but it gives me the idea that these are not individual people as much as they are congregation members, voices in the crowd that you can’t attribute to anyone but that are answered with yeahs and assents from the crowd, who then gets to go “well, it wasn’t ME that said it, I was just, y’know, generally there, *I’*m not a hateful bigot… but, y’know, they weren’t WRONG, not completely, y’know, they were just a bit rude about it, but y’know, it’s understandable…”
I think there’s a difference between inciting a community by drawing incredibly racist caricatures and offending a community with a haircut.
No. There isn’t. That’s the fucking point, and you (or, at least, the opinion you espouse) are part of the whole problem. Because you know what, besides drawings, also incites violent fanatics? EVERYTHING. And people like you keep saying, “yes, well, they were over the line in their reaction, but it’s not like it was UNJUSTIFIED.”
The Orlando shooting? Do you know how many people said “well, sure, it was over the line, but well, those people were like, kissing people of the same gender IN PUBLIC.”
The Planned Parenthood attacks? “Well, sure, dude shouldn’t have SHOT them, but they were like, MURDERING BABIES.”
99% of all rapes ever? “well, okay, MAYBE he shouldn’t have done that, but well, look at how she was DRESSED.”
And people like you keep making excuses for these fuckers. So, honestly, fuck you and people like you who keep saying “well, they did a bad thing but it wasn’t like they weren’t provoked” when MASS MURDER happens.
JBento, that comment was right on the money! Wrong is wrong, evil is evil there is no excuse.
JBento is my spirit animal.
Psh, your assumptions are funny.
OK, so here is the thing about the Hebdo cartoons and the earlier, Danish Mohammed cartoons… Now, first of all, I’m -not- going to say that in itself, it was justified. That the cartoons were pretty racist is indisputable, but you still do -not- motherfucking respond with actual violence; if nothing else because it just makes people think the cartoons are correct.
BUT, there is something about this that people do tend to forget: Those cartoons did not happen in a vacuum. Racist cartoons like that has been going on before, and even in the late 90s, when the internet started to become a thing, and it did not turn into protests and shootings behind it.
But the thing is, these reactions did not happen simply because of a vacuum. It also happened because of USA essentially mass murdering people in the war of terror, including invading a country that -shitty dictator aside*- did not have anything to do with the actual terror attack, nor did it have any capability to actually strike USA with anything larger than a firecracker.
And yeah, strangely enough, quite a lot of people in the area felt like USA were putting its nose where it didn’t belong, for selfish reasons, under the rather dubious pretense of “giving freedom”. When your town is bombed for no apparent reason, I guess it feels less like “being set free” and more “join our way or die”.
In short, quite a lot people felt that USA was being a big mass-murdering bully that tried to eradicate their way of life. And now we come to the point: In this context, in this enviroment, is that really the best of time to put up some nice racist cartoons? I mean, really? Between the war, and the rhetorical speeches made in favour of the war (usually implying that God is on our side, dont’cha know?), said cartoons served to instill the feeling that the West was not just waging war on terrorists, it was a culture war seeking to eradicate anything non-Western. It was the straw to break the camel’s back, so to speak.
Still justified in attacking the cartoonists? OF COURSE NOT! I will not excuse them for that, ever. I just want to remind everyone of the wider context here, because that context is sort of important. After all, said wide context of those invasions pretty much also kickstarted ISIS into being.
* And funnily enough, Saddam was not particularly religiously shitty as a dictator (he managed to let different groups of religion live relatively stable together), more like “let’s kill and oppress the Kurds, and also people I don’t like” shitty. And oppressing the Kurds was a sentiment that he shared with Turkey’s government, but gods forbid the USA tell Turkey to stop that, what with them being “esteemed NATO members” and all…
Besides, before the US invasion, it was not unheard of for women in Iraq to seek out careers and study in universities. In fact, the US invasion pretty much made the country go backwards in that direction, as women suddenly were no longer to walk outside alone without a male family member accompanying her and other similar regressive shit.
Inciting a community? If you dont’ like something, you just say so, not murder people, and oh, I think they just tried to use it as an excuse because they where planning to murder people anyway.
Yes, inciting a community. There is no excuse for what the murderers did. A drawing is just a drawing; an incredibly racist, disgusting drawing.
To compare a tragedy to someone’s personal decision that affects no one is pretty distasteful, to be frank.
To be fair, there’s a very good argument abortion and homosexuality are only “Christian issues” because of the political lobbyists who used them as “safe” ways of riling up their supporters while actually not giving two ****s about them in real life. Back in my fundamentalist days, I was involved in the Republican party and even my lowly staffer position showed me some genuinely 1984-esque stuff about mass manipulation of the public. Which, honestly, doesn’t make the churches any better but makes them gullible as well as hate-filled too.
To ACTUALLY be fair, that… doesn’t matter? Maybe it’s just me, but if someone’s kicking me, at that moment I don’t care if they’re doing it because they believe I deserve to be kicked or because someone told them I deserved to be kicked. I really just want the kicking to stop.
Lack of understanding only ensures that it will happen again.
Goddammit.
THAT’s an easy answer. The bible says that what really matters is how much you praise and believe in the sky daddy, and HERE’s how you do that, except for this OTHER part that says you do it in the exact opposite way, so, really, just pick whatever you want to do, because Jesus loves you anyway since you’re so much better than those OTHER people. Also, you can fuck up everyone along the way, just as long as you’re REALLY sorry about it when you’re about to die, because fuck being held accountable for your actions.
Also, there’s that whole part that, unlike the bible, Aesop’s were never really government enforced on pain of pain.
tbh, aesop’s fables would have been a much better bible
Yeah, Hank. Show’em those Ground Hog Blues!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtqnZCMoLPU
I can hardly breathe for what’s going to happen next. Joyce is going to ‘splode and that’ll be the moment the Earth opens up between Hank and Carol. Hank will rise… (Please!)
You are getting terribly close to why I haven’t attended church services for many years.
That’s not a bad thing.
I still don’t see anything inherently wrong with Hank, unless he opts to NOT say something, but considering how angry he’s getting, I doubt that’ll be the case.
Seriously, maybe I’m missing a key factor but Hank’s been a fairly positive character, or a least one who seems the most “normal”.
Do it, Joyce’s Dad. Do the thing. Oh, I hope you will do the thing.
life sucks. people suck. I suck. crap. This happens. It’s real. We’re in a century beginning with 2. And yet I think the human race is on a really slow path to “not sucking”. Is that too much to ask – just don’t suck. Tell, me, if I wait long enough, one at a time, one person at a time, will we get a little closer to a world without judgement? We all have to just stop putting our life outlook on others. The people in this church need to read that book they talk so much about. There’s a lot of good stuff in there! I keep 1 Cor. 16:14 in the back of my head and try to apply it to EVERYTHING. I fail at times though. It’s like I’m not perfect or something. But there’s people in the church that don’t seem to know that verse exists. How can that be? At least go with Luke 6:37. Ugh. Anyone got ice cream? I need some ice cream right now. I’ll share!
Provided man doesn’t wipe himself out first, we’re going to be in a century beginning with ‘2’ for the next thousand years more or less.
More to the point, the last time we had a century beginning with 2, the Roman Empire was still alive and kicking.
Millennia, a Millennia beginning in 2.
Millennium. Singular. And there has not been a millennium beginning with 2 before. Not without retconning, anyway.
Damn Hank. That’s one hell of a fire in your eyes.
♫♯♪ “We didn’t start the fire…” ♪♫
Oh yes you did!
Technically, it has always been burning since the world’s been turning, or at least the advanced civilization one.
AND they’ve officially pissed of Hank,
That is very much a series of Joyce faces, innit?
Initially read this after coming out of an argument with a player in my Roll20 game, thought the creeped-out-ness and disgust came from that. Nope.
Love how Carol has not lost a chance to grab all the negative traits.
GO HANK GO. I’m hoping that Hank will turn out to be where Joyce gets her “details, sure, but the whole MISSION STATEMENT of Jesus is to love and care for your neighbors and NOT BE A DICK” attitude. I know a lot of people like that! They take a little while to come around, but during the adjustment period they’re polite and a little withdrawn while they work things through in their head, and then when they get their worldview re-oriented then they come back out and kick ass in the best of ways.
…of course, I also know a lot of people like Carol, who are great as long as you agree with them in all things, but if you don’t they will viciously bring all the stupid details to prove they’re “right” so you’ll repent and agree with them again, and of course it also serves to distract you from the fact that they’re going against the whole Jesus thing by being a wretched asshole.
Seriously betting that Joyce’s homeschool group is ATI-associated. The whole hair thing just REEKS of it.
http://religiondispatches.org/taliban-dans-teacher-inside-bill-gothards-authoritarian-subculture/
Hank continues to be best dad, but will he step up and say something? Tune tomorrow! Same Hank Time, Same Hank Channel.
YES HANK. COME TO THE LIGHT SIDE OF THE FORCE.
This church is en route to a serious Brown note. Probably sung in duet.
Oh look – it’s the pre-Internet comments section!
We need a gun, quickly!
The wheels are turning… Hank is seeing the BS in his own community.
Dark thought. Tristan is the one complaining about Becky’s loss of beauty, because he always liked her more than Joyce.
In today’s battle of the morally heinous: Becky’s haircut vs abducting your kid at gunpoint- which is less lordly?
In that church? I’ll give you three guesses, but I’ll bet you only need one.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Just HOW deep up their own [blank] do they have to be to be more worried about Becky’s haircut versus Toedad’s shooting spree?
Hank may go after the judgmental church ladies, but I’m willing to bet it’ll be because the girls have embarrassed him and not because he feels the need to defend them. Remember the incident with the car? He wasn’t upset that they stayed out, he didn’t bother to ask why, it was because he didn’t want to lose an argument. It was about “saving face” and the same applies around his church friends. The girls are irrelevant, all that counts is his image.
This wasn’t supposed to be a reply here, it was suppled to be a standalone comment.
-spreads hands- That deep. and rising
See, now I’m waiting for Hank to lunge in with a fist, only to be beaten there by Joyce.
“So when you say ‘church shouldn’t be a place for politics’, and assuming for a moment that you abide by that yourself, and even that that’s possible when your definition of politics is as wide as it seems to be…what exactly is it that you want Becky to do to comply with this?”
“Well, she shouldn’t…you know…just look at her…”
“She’s wearing a long pink dress with pink shoes. Not sure how flattering it is, but it certainly meets standards of decorum and gender conformity.”
“But that hair.”
“Ah, so what you disapprove of is her haircut–something she can’t simply alter for church mornings, biology being what it is. So you don’t think she should come to church, then?”
“No, no, of course not!”
“Right, because you just said it was a good thing that she had come. But not with that haircut, because it’s political. So since she can’t just grow her hair longer every Sunday, it’s not simply a question of church: you want to dictate to an unrelated adult how she should wear her hair all the time. And, since you insist that her haircut is political, you want to dictate how she expresses her politics into the bargain. That seems like a lot of control you’re asking for.”
“I just want her to be beautiful!”
“Well, good news, then. She already is.”
Whether the Soviet Union or Good Old US of A, the need to make people conform is a demonic curse of humanity.
*applause*
One more little note: “Who she is now”. Who she is NOW. Because of course, gayness is a choice and choosing to turn away from God and be a Lesbian Deviant makes you an entirely different person and yeah you know what no I just can’t deal with this one anymore, augh.
So, like pod people, only with less mess to clean up?
I resent that remark.
But do you refute it?
That way of viewing queerness is so brutally common it hurts.
I still remember my family lamenting how much I changed and how hard it was to adapt to “all the changes” when I came out to them while I was just sitting there with the same interests and personality I’d always had and them acting like I was some stranger that up and sucked away their beautiful son forever in order to steal his life.
Like, this weird idea that being queer in some fashion is some replacement you just because they had this weird fantasy of a person as cis and/or straight is one of the weirdest queer experiences to explain to others.
Like, how do you even begin with you just doing you, but with slightly less fear and depression and hearing unending lamentations about “who you are now” and all the things you “used to be”? That Hank is recognizing it as messed up is a really good positive sign for him being able to start breaking with the awful he’s been stewing in for years.
Also, all the *hugs*.
I mean like, I should be used to it, because I deal with the constant background radiation of “autism is an epidemic stealing our children and we need to take them back” and the related “Your child is not an actual human being with wants and needs and personality of their own, but instead a doll you can project whatever traits you want on them” but it’s still so gritting to see it laid out like that in this specific way.
All the *hugs* back. For all the issues I’ve had with life I can at least say my family hasn’t had that kind of fantasy person for over a decade and got over themselves fast and out of my awareness at the time. Gotta suck harder than anything when you have to see them pointedly Not Adjust.
If it’ any consolation, my parents act the same way toward me, and I’m cis, straight, graduated from college, married, and have kids.
Somehow in the process of growing up, I became this person they hate, and they waste no opportunity to tell me so.
It sucks.
A few times in my life I tried to go with my friends to “Christian ” church, but as well meaning and friendly the group would be something would be said or done and it would turn me right off. As a Catholic I like some aspects of my religion, but again I can’t get behind some of the stances the church takes. Some people told me I couldn’t pick and choose what to believe in a religion and I say that’s bullshit people do that anyway.
Blast! One of my comments upways seems to have run afoul of Willis’ policy. My apologies.
Testing with this one to see if it was comment deleted or IP ban (hope that’s okay).
“She should cover her hair when she comes to church, for our benefit. It’s technically against the Bible but it would make me more comfortable.”
“No, she should have grown it out and left it permanently long! I know she doesn’t like it and we don’t even have to see her most of the time, but she should do it for us because we love her and want to see the best in her :))”
‘he should get a gun’ oh thanks Carol. I think that would be a bad idea.
Hank is me in this strip.
I’m sure that this has been said already, but:
RIGHT, because threatening to shoot one’s own daughter (and actually intending to go through with it if necessary) is TOTALLY equivalent to cutting one’s hair shorter.
Jesus…(would not have approved of your ways).
*what she is.
I’ve never heard someone like that pass on an excuse to dehumanize the matter.
“like that”
Let me rephrase that to ‘of that mindset’, given the topic 😛
Is it bad that this strip makes me want to chop off all my hair again?
Again??
I’ve had long hair most of my life. About 8 years ago I went from near waist length hair to just long enough to spike. I kept it that way for a few years, much to the dismay of my family. They all pretty much hated it, and I got a bunch of flack from my co-workers for a while too.
It’s back to near waist length again, for the moment…
I had to come back and say this because I’ve been thinking about this strip all day. It hits home harder than I thought it would since I basically gave up going to church because I knew I wouldn’t be able to deal with this, knowing how much church was like. My grandmother always questioned me as to why I stopped going and I always told her that I don’t feel comfortable there nor do I share the exact same beliefs anymore, so I’m not going to put myself or them in that position out of respect for myself.
My grandmother, who loves me very much and while I have never told her of my sexuality preferences, probably knows that I’m not straight – still has problems with “gay marriage” and has told me that she has no problem with people having the same rights “but it should be called something else.”
I wish I had been stronger to fight her on it but I just walked away knowing that I’ll have to either make the decision to invite her to my wedding with my girlfriend or not.
I only bring it up here because this is the type of behavior and talk that terrifies me, especially from people who you thought were people you could trust to respect you as you respect them.
As I said before, I really hope that Hank does the right thing.
*hugs*
*group hugs*
*more hugs*
Thank you to all of you. I’m always glad to see people open to these discussions and while I know a comment section isn’t the best place to talk about these things, but I find myself more comfortable talking with others here because these things need to be discussed. I’m glad the comic is out here, urging these sorts of discussions to come up where they might otherwise not. 🙂
See I really like the facial expressions. It really conveys the change of feelings from “What?” to “No. Please don’t tell me the people here are like that…Please don’t tell me my friends are horrible people” to “Please tell me I wasn’t like these people.” to finally “I no longer want anything to do with these fucks.”
I may be a little weepy from Father’s Day still. … Can Hank Brown be my dad?
*hugs*
Just let us take him away from his toxic environment for a little while longer and give him positive reinforcement lessons on how to really be a properly good dad (I think he is going in the right direction, but there will probably be more relapses coming up), then yes.
And if that doesn’t work, I’ll share my dad with you. As long as you’re happy with having to go to Norway to meet him.
Certified amazing Dad right there. Can’t wait to see what happens next
I’ll tell you what a hypocrite’ll do
(Way in the middle of the air)
He’ll talk about me and he’ll talk about you
(Way in the middle of the aaaaair).
That is the face of a man who has exceeded his daily limit of horseshit. Several somebodies are about to Get Told.
Joyce already had her “All right, then I’ll go to Hell.” moment. Is this Hank’s?
I really hope the anger on his face is anger at what they are saying and not out of some feeling of personal embarrassment that he will blame on Becky in a future strip.
My interest in Joyce’s dad is growing. I’m hoping he defends Becky :C
You know (he said, knowing that very few people will read the comments section of this strip at this point), something did occur to me about Hank’s anger in the last panel.
I think that Hank is not only angry at the two unseen talkers there, but also angry at himself. Remember when he first saw Becky with her new haircut? Sure, he still welcomed her, but he also made a negative comment to Joyce about the hair.
True, nowhere near as horrible a comment as these people, but still, he did not expect it to look like that, and his initial reaction was (despite how he tried to deflect it by saying Carol was going to be shocked about it) that he did not like it, because it was not how a girl’s hair is supposed to look.
The only thing was, he did not realise this back then. He just knew it was somehow “wrong”, but he could not articulate why. Today, he finds out why. It is because of his church’s oppressive culture. It is because he has been taught that women are supposed to look like they are there to please the men they will eventually marry rather than pleasing themselves.
And as he realises this, he gets angry at himself because he was thinking the same thing! He was not saying it, but he was still somehow thinking it. And now he seems to be realising that this is the wrong way of thinking. That Becky is first and foremost Becky, a grown-up human being that is his daughter’s best friend, and which should be allowed to make her own decisions on how her hair looks without people being so goddamn judgemental about it, that it somehow justifies the whole assault and kidnapping.
I really, really want to like Joyce’s dad. Out of the non-teacher adults shown so far he’s probably my favorite. Just every once in a while he says or does something that makes me uneasy. Still, it’s good to see that he cares about both his daughter and Becky.