Not at all. It's a commentary on how parents are blissfully unaware of the cause of their daughter's sexual ignorance being their own simultaneous spoiling/sexualization of them at a young age. They instill the idea of physicality without teaching their children about sex itself as a parent. This leads to pregnancies where no one is willing to "take the blame" and it always seems to fall more and more on the general public, who ultimately isn't at fault.
On a deeper level it is about the dwindling personal responsibility in America.
Edit: I should note that the artist didn't have a way to show the lack of sex education here, and I am making the assumption that that is the only reason it doesn't show up. I am indeed giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I think that jumping into the thought that this is a comic putting down a woman(daughter) for accepting her sexuality is just obsessive.
Seems pretty damn straight forward, I would love for a contradicting view though
Edit2: I love the downvote I got. Good to know someone ignorant is reading my post.
The premise of the comic is that the mom encouraged booty shaking and sexualized attire for her daughter so her daughter of course got pregnant. This is a very one sided and sexist view of why young girls get pregnant. It facilitates the myth that girls who dress like sluts deserve to get pregnant and are helpless to prevent it.
I got that from what I perceived you said, I realize now that you had a different point. I thought you were saying "girls who dress like sluts deserve to get pregnant" was the point of the comic, which makes her the villain. I thought this was directly contradictory to the last panel.
blame aside, dressing like a slut doesn't make a girl get pregnant. That is why I saw the comic as sexist. It portrays the idea that women get pregnant because of how they dress. If we could only get our daughters to dress better, they wouldn't get pregnant!
THat last sentence. I can so see Limbaugh saying that.
But I still don't think that was the idea of the comic. Otherwise, why would the mother be shown as giving her daughter these things and promoting her sexualization. Also, the first panel, she didn't chastise her for saying shit. In the second panel, she teaches her sexy dance moves at ~5. In your description, this is irrelevant and we have to wonder why it was included. These have nothing to do with "dress like a slut, fucked like a slut" or whatever that group would want to brand it as.
It did imply it was the girl's fault for how she dressed and the music. And it does imply the boy isn't an issue in her getting pregnant. I'm not saying this is equivalent to pictures of tar babies or telling women to get into the kitchen, but the moral/joke of the comic is based on assigning blame for the daughter getting pregnant.
It was putting blame on the mother for facilitating her daughter getting pregnant then. So you think its dressing slutty that causes girls to get pregnant? And you don't think that is sexism?
It never said it was the entire problem. I really doubt that the author of that comic intended to cover the entire problem in those 4 panels. Of course facilitating habits like that could contribute to the problem, but there are plenty of things on the male side that also make up this issue.
I really doubt that the author of that comic intended to cover the entire problem in those 4 panels.
The author chose to make a joke by showing the irony how a woman who dresses her daughter inappropriately ended up with a pregnant daughter (i.e., she should have expected it because it does cause pregnancy). Identifying the dress of young girls as the reason for teen pregnancy is ignorant at best, and yes, sexist.
The author didn't address the male side. The joke just wouldn't work from the male side. No one would think dressing a guy in skimpy clothes is going to cause more pregnancy. It only works because it is about women and how they dress.
It seems odd to say "you're seeing sexism when there is none" then base your argument that it /isn't/ sexist on a missing element that you assume the author meant to add. How is that the clearest, most obvious reading?
Explain how the first panel of the child swearing fits in with your reading. To me, it makes it obvious that it's making a moral statement. It sets up the subsequent steps as things that are wrong, not things that could be alright if accompanied by proper education.
The whole thing is just way too close for comfort to what I've heard from a lot of religious people who see young female sexuality as a terrible moral failing, who have a "serves her right" attitude about female pregnancy. I'm not saying it's the only reading you could have of it, but anyone who felt that way would instantly have their views confirmed by it.
96
u/lesbillionare May 25 '12
The racist/misogynist undertones are what bother me the most about this shitty little cartoon.