Does This Even BEGIN To Make Sense?

Cidu Bill on Mar 8th 2009

iwd.gif

Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, Stone Soup, comic strips, comics, humor | 37 responses so far

37 Responses to “Does This Even BEGIN To Make Sense?”

  1. Wayne Mar 8th 2009 at 12:33 pm 1

    If she marries the right guy her kids will do well??

  2. Karen Mar 8th 2009 at 01:09 pm 2

    By helping women–generally a community of women–you help the children of a community, thereby improving the community as a whole. See also: micro lending, Heifer.org, fairtrade commodities. Almost universally, mothers sacrifice to give their children better lives. So if a woman has respect, human rights, dignity, a living wage, clean water, etc., her children will grow up with those things too. A child raised with those simple (!) things will go further in life.

  3. Elyrest Mar 8th 2009 at 01:14 pm 3

    Karen said it. If half of the world’s population is treated poorly merely because they are female how can any of us possibly prosper?

  4. Kevin S Mar 8th 2009 at 01:15 pm 4

    The comic strip at first looks like a “special message” strip, but is actually a joke, since it claims that International Women’s Day celebrates the idea that women are only valuable to the extent that they raise their children well. It’s meta-textual.

    (Or, more likely, the author of this strip has no clue what he is talking about.)

  5. Mel Mar 8th 2009 at 01:17 pm 5

    Though I get the overall point, by using the comic’s definition, it should be named International Mothers Day. Not all women have children.

  6. Kevin S Mar 8th 2009 at 01:26 pm 6

    Agreed, Mel. Here is a link to the about page for International Women’s Day:

    http://www.internationalwomensday.com/about.asp

    The point is that although women are inherently as valuable as men, around the world they still fall short of the same political and social rights. It is not about motherhood, an admittedly important concept celebrated on other days.

  7. Keera Mar 8th 2009 at 01:37 pm 7

    I get the impression that countries that do not observe International Women’s Day conflate it with Mother’s Day. At least in my neck of the woods (Norway), it is still a day of political speeches and demonstrations for civil/equal rights. This year, the women are burning hijabs, not bras.

  8. Ron Obvious Mar 8th 2009 at 01:40 pm 8

    I’m maybe going out on a limb here, but I think there’s a certain implicit defensiveness serving as a subtext here. Not all women are mothers (as other commentors have noted), but those who are sometimes (and if I may generalize on the basis of the women I know, I would say “often”) feel a certain need to justify pursuing their own personal interests. That is, they perceive a (sometimes explicit, often implicit) expectation that mothers should sacrifice their own interests for their children. And with this can come feelings of guilt.

    So the mother in the strip is saying that no, she CAN pursue her own interests with no contradiction here - because what’s good for her is good for her children.

    It’s not funny, of course - I don’t believe it was intended to be.

    Oh, and there needn’t be a confusion about what IWD is about. The strip is about mothers being involved in a day which is about women - so there’s no statement that all women are (or should be) mothers.

  9. Elyrest Mar 8th 2009 at 01:42 pm 9

    Even women who don’t have children help ALL children when they have the rights and respect that all people should have. Mothers aren’t the only people who raise and influence children.

  10. Patrick Mar 8th 2009 at 01:59 pm 10

    By the way, Kevin S., the creator of “Stone Soup” is named Jan Eliot and she is not a “he.”

    (CIDU Bill, you accidentally identified her in your tags as “Jan Stone”).

  11. Kevin S Mar 8th 2009 at 02:38 pm 11

    Patrick: Thank you for the correction, I am not familiar with this comic.

    I wonder if Bill is going to weigh in on why he couldn’t make sense of this comic.

    To me it comes down to:
    Panel 1: Primarily about motherhood.
    Panel 2: “That is the meaning of International Women’s Day”
    Thus, “Motherhood is the meaning of International Women’s Day”, thus “Motherhood is the meaning of women,” an offensive statement. Expanding that to “Raising children is the meaning of women” doesn’t seem to help much.

    You all have convinced me that the author meant well by this comic, but I still think she didn’t pull it off. Adding the two words “to me” at the end might have gone a long way.

  12. CIDU Bill Mar 8th 2009 at 02:44 pm 12

    So, Kevin, what didn’t you understand about what I didn’t understand? You seemed to have nailed most of it.

    Also, Val’s comment about how her daughters’ success is somehow dependent on HER success is just weird: It makes for a good “It’s all about ME!” comment, but it seems to be saying that the girls are doomed to failure if they can’t inherit their success from their mother.

    I think they’d be better served by being TAUGHT WELL by their mother, and by improved opportunities for women in general.

    For all that people have explained International Women’s Day here, nobody’s actually explained Val’s comment.

  13. Elyrest Mar 8th 2009 at 03:59 pm 13

    Bill, I thought that Val’s comment was explained well.

    Karen said: “By helping women–generally…you help the children of a community, thereby improving the community as a whole.. mothers sacrifice to give their children better lives. So if a woman has respect, human rights, dignity, a living wage, clean water, etc., her children will grow up with those things too. A child raised with those simple (!) things will go further in life.”

    If Val, as a woman, has a better life her children will have a better life.

  14. CIDU Bill Mar 8th 2009 at 04:26 pm 14

    My problem with this was that Val didn’t say “If women’s lot is improved,” but rather “If I do well,” as if the point of the special day is to aknowledge direct causation between Val’s success and her daughters’ success.

    If that’s not what she meant, there are any number of ways she could have better expressed herself.

  15. Singapore Bill Mar 8th 2009 at 05:29 pm 15

    It is saying that because she got pregnant and had children, the world owes her something because “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!1111!11!OMG!!”

    While I support the idea of equality for people, I’m getting rather tired of those with children thinking their needs trump those of us without, though I have no particular antipathy to children.

  16. Arvy Mar 8th 2009 at 05:30 pm 16

    After reading it a few times, I realized that with the first two lines (I am a mother, you are my children) she is using herself and daughters as symbols for the current and next generation of women. i.e. International Women’s day is about making sure that we get things right for today’s women so they’ll be ok for tomorrow’s women.

    It is the same device a CEO might use to explain supply side economics. I’m a CEO - you are my employees and customers. If I do ok, then you do ok.

    While I initially agreed with what Bill just wrote (”there are any number of ways she could have better expressed herself.”), I now think that this was actually a pretty good way of expressing herself. On the other hand, I suppose any attempt to express oneself that is not understood by the intended audience is, by definition, NOT a good effort.

  17. [jec] Mar 8th 2009 at 05:35 pm 17

    I dunno - because it looks as though it’s just me - but I thought it obvious, subliminal, critical and funny. Wattersonesque, even. (Try the Helen Reddy I, not the royal I.)

  18. Charlene Mar 8th 2009 at 07:51 pm 18

    Ron Obvious has a very good point. Men are told it is right and healthy and natural for them to pursue their own well-being: women are told that it is wrong and unhealthy and unnatural and sick in the head for them to pursue their own well-being.

  19. Charlene Mar 8th 2009 at 07:53 pm 19

    Elyrest, it comes across as “women who don’t have children don’t deserve better treatment, because the only reason for women’s rights is to make sure their children are healthy. They in and of themselves don’t deserve equality just for being people.”

  20. Elyrest Mar 8th 2009 at 08:12 pm 20

    Charlene, I am confused. Who are you quoting? And where does that come across?

  21. Mark M Mar 8th 2009 at 09:16 pm 21

    I’m not familiar with this comic, but the impression I got, which I don’t think has been expressed here yet, is that the mom is stating the simple fact that the quality of her kids’ lives are very dependent on her success. I don’t see this as egotistical, and have thought the same thing about my kids (although as a father, not a mother, but same idea). If I am a failure, I can’t provide my kids with the tools they need to be successful. The message then is do whatever it takes to provide your kids with the best possible opportunities. Seems like a good message to me.

  22. Brent Mar 8th 2009 at 09:21 pm 22

    18, Charlene: It’s worse that, men are programmed that they must succeed, and only by doing that their family will do well. Which is probably why this strip isn’t quite ringing true… the first panel practically quotes the same lie used by wort-compulsive career men and women alike as to why it’s okay for them to neglect their family for the sake of bringing home more money. After all, more money means that their family has a higher standard of living… so the kids will turn out just fine without you being there. Sure, the strip doesn’t intend that… but the language in the first panel literally says that, so it causes some dissonance. There had to be better ways to write this strip (more natural language would be nice).

    16, Arvy: If that was the case she should have used “daughters” instead of “children” (along with rephrasing things). As it stands, it’s obviously setting off people’s “think of the children” fallacy detectors.

  23. brien Mar 8th 2009 at 10:49 pm 23

    Why would you expect it to make sense? She’s a woman!

  24. Karen Mar 8th 2009 at 11:28 pm 24

    CIDU Bill, Val doesn’t say her daughter’s success is dependent upon her success. Not to bring up that whole ‘correlation-causation’ thing, but Val says ‘If A, then B’. Which isn’t the same as ‘If not A, then not B’.

    Two panels isn’t enough for a proper thesis on womens’ rights and human rights and the need for both, so I saw this strip with a more narrow focus. I think Val is just trying to get through to her daughters. Holly (the blond) is often in ‘Whatever’ land and discounts much of what her mom says. Here Val has put IWD in terms of what’s in it for them.

  25. That Idiot Ivan Mar 9th 2009 at 12:14 am 25

    Arvy — It depends on how you define the “intended audience.”
    The artist’s audience is us, the readers, but Val’s “audience” is her daughters. The message can be understood to a greater or lesser degree, understood differently, mis-understood, or even be totally contradictory, depending on which side of the sheet of paper/screen the recipient is.
    In this case, even if the “message” is not immediately understood by the girls, it is phrased in a form and at a level they would be comfortable with, which might (or might not) encourage them to further discussion, but at least would not intimidate them into silence.

  26. That Idiot Ivan Mar 9th 2009 at 12:23 am 26

    Karen — I didn’t see your message before I started collecting all the hot air for mine.
    Thank you for a clear, coherent and concise statement, but then I expected you to make sense … (#23)

  27. meerkat Mar 9th 2009 at 02:46 am 27

    I figured that “if I do well” meant “if I totally make the feminist revolution and stuff” and if she did that her female children would live their adult lives with equality (and her male children if she has any–the ones in the strip look female to me, but she didn’t call them “daughters”–would also benefit from the deconstruction of certain male stereotypes such as being a macho macho brick of manly non-emotion). Clear as mud! It probably actually means “women’s worth is in their parenting because being raised right is an advantage later in life and women exist only to serve their children.”

  28. Chaz Larson Mar 9th 2009 at 10:28 am 28

    When I talk to my kids about stuff I always personalize it. “If you practice hard and listen to your coaches you can do well in your baseball tryouts” is not a guarantee aimed specifically at Jack; it’s a general truism that applies to Jack just as it does to all the other boys in town.

    I might say “I work hard to provide you kids with the opportunities you should have” I’m not in any way claiming that I am the only parent that does so or that this situation is unique in any way.

    Similarly, Jan’s saying “If I do well, you do well” is a general truism, as Karen said, but she’s personalizing it because she is an individual mother speaking to her daughters. If Jan had said something like “If all mothers do well, their daughters are more likely to have better opportunities in their lives” or some such other generalized statement, it would have sounded stilted.

  29. Kate C Mar 9th 2009 at 11:40 am 29

    As a non-mother, I don’t feel the least bit insulted by the implication, as others claim, that woman = mommy. I recognize that I don’t have children because I have special privledges in a western society–I wasn’t forced into marriage at a young age; I have access to birth control, and a husband who doesn’t force me not to use it; if I were to face an unwanted pregnancy, I have the right to an abortion. However, most women in the world aren’t so lucky, and many, many, many are mothers not out of choice, but out of circumstances.

  30. Elyrest Mar 9th 2009 at 12:59 pm 30

    Kate C - I am a non-mother too. I frankly am rather confused by some of the comments dealing with feminism, women existing merely for their children and even attacks on men. The comic seems very simple to me and several people stated it very well.
    Your comments about choices adds to that in a very nice way. IWD was started to help all people. Everyone is better off if the lives of women (and men) everywhere is improved.

  31. Todd Mar 9th 2009 at 03:44 pm 31

    The red-haired woman has a blond and brunette child? Of course the probably colors her hair.

  32. Powers Mar 10th 2009 at 07:22 am 32

    The problem, Elyrest, is this: If the meaning of International Women’s Day has to do with mothers providing opportunity for their children — as is implied by the character in this strip — then what is the meaning of International Women’s Day for women without children?

  33. Elyrest Mar 10th 2009 at 11:24 am 33

    Powers, this strip isn’t implying that “the meaning of International Women’s Day has to do with mothers providing opportunity for their children” - you are just inferring it does from your interpretation of the strip.

    The character, Jan, is a mother. That doesn’t cancel out the woman it merely overlays a new function. Jan is explaining to her children that, as a woman, if she does well they will do well. That doesn’t imply only mothers will do well.

  34. Powers Mar 11th 2009 at 07:18 am 34

    No, but it implies that the meaning is intimately related to motherhood. Otherwise, she would have said “I am a woman; you are children; if I do well, you’ll do well.” Instead she emphasized her familial arrangement, implying that that’s part of the meaning of IWD.

  35. fh Mar 11th 2009 at 09:07 am 35

    The character Val is a mother. Jan is the cartoonist.

  36. Elyrest Mar 11th 2009 at 12:53 pm 36

    Powers - you just don’t seem to get the meaning of imply and infer. The character Val (thanks fh) is a mother. She is using herself to explain to her children. You are inferring that because she uses herself as an example that IWD is just about mothers.

  37. Matthew Mar 13th 2009 at 02:16 am 37

    No, Mel, Kevin, & Bill: As Karen (#2) & Elyrest (#9) said, when one generation’s women do well, they make it easier for the next generation’s women to do well. Val does NOT say that her daughter’s success depends on her success. She says that if she does well, then they will do well. The daughters could certainly do well even if Val doesn’t. Karen (#2) explained Val’s comment already. To say, “If women’s lot is improved” implies that it will happen w/out women doing the improving.

    Arvy, your statement is quite good, too. Val uses a nice synecdoche here.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply