6 Girls! 6!
Cidu Bill on Oct 3rd 2009
I just a little confused here: The second through fourth panels fit together as a coherent discussion. The first panel, though, seems out of place, implying that Connie was born before the invention of birth control and contradicting “Your mom must have wanted a large family.”
Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, For Better or For Worse, Lynn Johnston, comic strips, comics, humor | 24 responses so far
meep Oct 3rd 2009 at 06:48 pm 1
Even way way back then they knew how to stop having babies. It’s pretty simple, you know.
Charlene Oct 3rd 2009 at 07:17 pm 2
In the 50s when these characters were born, meep? Hardly. A woman needed a signed letter from her husband before she could receive a diaphragm, let alone sterilization (although in practice most women couldn’t get anyone to perform a tubal or a hysterectomy even if they’d had sixteen children and the next was guaranteed to kill them).
I wonder what version of the 50s you lived through.
Rainey Oct 3rd 2009 at 07:21 pm 3
Charlene, did you ever consider that avoiding sex could keep one from becoming pregnant?
Jeff S. Oct 3rd 2009 at 07:24 pm 4
I was born in 1961, even though my mother owned a diaphram. She kept it on the bedpost with a thumbtack. Might explain me and my 7 siblings.
BroBoCop Oct 3rd 2009 at 08:30 pm 5
I think it has as much to do with women having more personal power to say NO as it is about birth control. The June Cleavers of the world would have been in complete submission to their husbands, whereas Ellie and Connie’s generation have more freedom to discuss such things with their husbands. “No, honey, I DON’T think we should go for a fourth child.”
David Oct 3rd 2009 at 08:31 pm 6
I can’t believe that I’m actually halfway defending FOOB, but here goes. It’s not an entirely coherent discussion, but it does flow. Connie is saying they have a choice on how many children to have, whereas she was part of a big family. Elly suggests that even one generation before, choices existed, and that Connie’s mother didn’t have to have a big family if she didn’t want. Connie then indicates that it wasn’t entirely her mother’s choice to have 6, it’s that her father kept convincing mom to take one more crack at it.
In the real world, I’ve known a lot of families with 3 girls, and in most cases, it’s because #3 was the last try for a boy. I only know one family that went 3-and-out with boys, hoping for a girl. I think the idea of 3 boys in much more unsettling to most people than the idea of 3 girls, hence being willing to risk the one much more than the other.
CIDU BIll Oct 3rd 2009 at 08:35 pm 7
David, I’m not sure it’s a matter of “unsettling” as much as men feeling they aren’t complete until they’ve had a son.
S.P. Charles Oct 3rd 2009 at 08:38 pm 8
Has it ever been made clear whether FOOB takes place in 2009 or this is all happening 25 years ago? My sense is that this has been kept deliberately ambiguous (or perhaps Johnston is just confused), and that would probably make a big difference here.
Rebecca Oct 3rd 2009 at 08:58 pm 9
This is kind of off-topic, but my parents had 4 girls, and then a boy. Then they had three girls and then another boy. Then they stopped. I’m the second-oldest girl and I remember I was quite hurt by people making comments about my parents “trying for a boy” and then “trying for another boy,” like the girls were just mistakes my parents were trying to undo.
Anyway, I agree with David’s interpretation. It’s implied that Connie’s mom was pressured into having six children because they kept trying for a boy. That must have been tough on Connie’s self-esteem growing up, though I don’t know how that fits in with her whole character. The only thing I can remember about her is that she’s divorced.
John B. Oct 3rd 2009 at 09:06 pm 10
Aren’t these strips repeats from the late 70’s or early 80s? But anyhow I think most people have it right. Sure, birth control pills as we know them now were invented in the 1960s and these women were probably born in the 1950s. But you COULD stop having babies.. just don’t have sex. But we know that’s probably unrealistic. Hence the issue.
Arthur Oct 3rd 2009 at 09:25 pm 11
Charlene & John B:
It doesn’t matter what year this strip is supposed to have
originated - condoms go back to at least the 16th century. No
need for modern pills & diaphragms, nor rhythm, nor abstinence.
I think David got it right. I also like that David put it as
“convincing” her rather than “forcing” her, since we don’t know
the details.
Kate C Oct 3rd 2009 at 10:04 pm 12
Maybe this is what Bill was saying, but what’s confusing to me is:
Panel 1: We, unlike past generations, have more of an active role in deciding how many children to have
Panel 3: Your mother must have wanted a large family, thereby having some role in deciding how many children she had
Obvious Oct 3rd 2009 at 11:37 pm 13
Rainey, has it ever occurred to you that telling your husband you didn’t want to have sex might not have been much of an option for women in the past (and unfortunatley for many today too- rape doesn’t just occur on streetcorners by strangers).
David N Oct 4th 2009 at 12:05 am 14
Arthur, you do know that women don’t actually use the condoms, right? And clearly, not many of you are Catholic. I’m not, but even I know the Church’s stand against birth control.
And hey, I heard you can lose all the weight you want if just stop eating. Just don’t eat, it’s easy, come on, what’s wrong with you.
furrykef Oct 4th 2009 at 12:41 am 15
Panel 3 is supposed to contradict panel 1. It’s not the same character speaking, after all.
turquoise cow Oct 4th 2009 at 11:29 am 16
SP Charles: I’m fairly certain that these “new” strips aren’t taking place in 2009. They just finished a whole to-do about Elly going back to work and John opposing the idea because his mother didn’t work outside the home. Fairly certain that sort of discussion wouldn’t occur today. One of the things that’s annoyed me about this new-old thing is the blatant sexism that shows up from time to time. Was it really this way back in the original run, and now it seems worse than it did, or has it been exaggerated with the re-doing? If they were going to rerun the entire strip, i think they should have just rerun the originals (like Peanuts) instead of this going back and editing thing like Star Wars.
Jeff Oct 4th 2009 at 12:13 pm 17
There was one strip where they were talking about newspapers becoming obsolete: http://joshreads.com/?p=1790
That would seem to indicate that it takes place in modern times.
Dan Oct 4th 2009 at 01:48 pm 18
I don’t think this has anything to do with birth control. It’s just that back in the day, women were seen more as babymakers than anything else; they were expected to bear children for the man of the house, and that was it. Connie may be implying that this isn’t the case anymore (which is true), that women can either have children or not. That is, society has progressed to giving (ha) women that choice.
Mitch4 Oct 4th 2009 at 03:07 pm 19
@Dan, your note is very clear, cogent, and helpful …. except for that first sentence where you doubt if “this has anything to do with birth control”. But of course it has to be connected with birth control, for any of the rest of it to make sense. Those individual and societal choices can’t take place in a bio-tech vacuum; the only come into play if there is (one or another or many) some form of birth control around. (Including older methods such as abstinence, rhythm, and withdrawal.)
Elyrest Oct 4th 2009 at 05:21 pm 20
My mother always told me that the rhythm method and withdrawal really aren’t birth control, but birth delay.
I have five sisters and brothers.
jayjaybear Oct 5th 2009 at 08:37 am 21
Johnston has said that the strips are now supposed to be happening currently. And yes, John seems to me to be much worse as far as sexism/cluelessness/male privilege than he was in the original run. I think Lynn is working out a few issues on the comics page…
Jeff S. Oct 5th 2009 at 12:30 pm 22
I actually have three older brothers. They are 15, 12, and 9 yrs older than I am. I am one of those people who was an only child, yet I had other siblings. It’s quite possible they were trying for another girl. True story…
I was eating breakfast one morning. I’m guessing I was around 14 or so. I told my dad, who was reading the newspaper while eating his breakfast, “You don’t have to lie to me anymore. I know I wasn’t planned.” Turning a page in the paper, he replied, “What makes you think the others were?”
I never brought up the subject again.
Scott Oct 6th 2009 at 02:07 am 23
You people are neglecting the possibility that women, who were part of the culture also, wanted boys. My mother was the third of four girls for exactly this reason, and my grandmother was neither meek nor subservient. After my youngest aunt was born my grandmother got a hysterectomy so she wouldn’t have any more. Unfortunately it was done with radium in those days and killed her 45 years later.
But I agree this is an example of the comic time warp, just like 35 year old characters today nostalgically remembering the Beatles.
Chuck Oct 7th 2009 at 01:55 pm 24
I know couples who have three boys because they were trying for a girl.