The Sins of the Husband Have Been Visited Upon the Wife

After much upheaval and resistance, Hillary Rodney Clinton has been vetted as the Presidential Candidate for being the first Female President.  There was some general disappointment eight years ago when she gave up her closest margin of victory in the last Presidential nomination to Obama, but now she's more than made up for that in spades with her behind-the-scenes tough-as-nails negotiations with politicians on both sides.  In reality, among the bridge-building, outright listening and relentless promotion of values, she's the most capable candidate compared to the competition.

And yet, there are still people who are heavily resistant to giving any support her direction, out of base loathing rather than reasonable decisions.  It's an emotional choice, not a logical one.  Her only sin, other than not appearing friendly enough to have a beer with (as if that was the only qualification a President needed) was being too competent in doing her job.  If she got so many people to agree with her, then she must have gotten ahead by doing... unsavory acts with multiple members of Parliament.  Failing that, she must've undergone some underhanded deals in order to get ahead.  This has put her in the impossible position of being multiple things at once.  If Hillary pushes too hard on an issue, she's criticized for being too hawkish.  If Hillary softens her image, she's criticized for appearing inauthentic.

This isn't helped by a Media that's more interested in paying attention on whether she's wearing a pink dress, or bakes cookies, rather than her political ability.  And that's not even getting into the matter of her wardrobe costs, which no male politician has to deal with, whose costs range in the $12,000 range for a suit that's interchangeable with every other tie combo.

Even playing the woman card doesn't wind up being a benefit, since as it turned out, even women are against Clinton.   These Faux Feminists weren't advocating for the equality of all women - they were railing against the injustice of a woman in power who wasn't conforming to the equality of all women.  These women were only content if other women were in the same power bracket as them.  That is, rather than helping push them against a resistant glass ceiling, they were aspiring to drag them down to join them in the muck with the others.

Feminist reaction basically boiled down to "Women's finally gotten recognition and rights.  What's more is there?"  How naive they were, thinking that respect only ended after being included as a token thought.  You have to constantly fight for your rights, otherwise events just revert back to a regular status quo.  And there are many violent offenders who would be more than content in having things go back to normal than do outright change.

The supposed reason for this extended suffering lies upon the fallacy that the wife should bear the sins of the husband.  It seems hard to believe, but when Bill started out, he was considered unlikable and unpopular to the Democrats who felt his cavalier attitude was detrimental to the Democratic party.  It was only until his stint with Monica Lewinski that he gained popularity for outright lying, which rankled both sides so much that he was considered being up for impeachment.  Even more damning - the majority of the committee that wanted Bill Clinton impeached have wound up being called out for infidelities of their own.

The fact that Hillary was on equal footing with Bill Clinton (a known adulterer) rankled many, because they were never entirely certain whether any words of recommendation came from his mouth or hers.

That association came to light when some Benghazi emails were improperly sent under improper procedure using her private email instead of the State Department email (that she herself asked for extra security) that turned into a literal witch-hunt lasting years, going nowhere.  Despite the fact that the contents of the emails were improperly classified, they could find no concrete evidence that she'd done anything wrong.  Mistakenly doing something wrong isn't a crime in itself, even if the results don't hurt anyone.  Owning up to the mistake is a worthy character trait.  But admitting these faults was all the justification needed to jump down her throat and go over her procedure in painstaking detail.  And after all the hullaboo, the intensive investigation intent in breaking Hillary down revealed... absolutely nothing they could tie to her.

Even the very fact that James Comey, the FBI director who personally investigated the Clinton emails (and served under George Bush Jr.), was unable to find any concrete evidence that Clinton did anything illegal along the likes of other data security leaks along the likes of David Petraeus and John M. Deutch.  The Republican's constant returning to this "scandal" has been a costly non-issue that's gone literally nowhere, and their constant harping caused the FBI director to move away from the political party he most identified with.  And yet, the Republicans keep going back to this well in the flimsy hope that maybe, just maybe they'll be able to go GOTCHA! this time around.  Despite the fact that the Clintons thrive under adversary from their opponents.

Comey: "She did not have public relations with her phone."
Republicans: "That just proves he's moved over to Clinton's side! TRAITAR!!!"

Currently, there's been more media coverage about the "outrage" over her supposed email scandal compared to Donald Trump's child rape charges which has been buried among all the other scandals he's built up for himself over the years.  Why is one considered acceptable, while the other is considered unacceptable?

Which brings up another question - where does all this animosity come from?  One possible culprit may be the funny pages, where wives' only purpose, other than aggravation seems to be stopping men from having as much fun as possible by nagging them at every opportunity.

One thing I've discovered upon binging months and years of Newspaper comics is that there's a certain sense of confirming conformity.  Just as various papers will focus on specific aspects of the news in order to reassure their readers that certain values are being upheld, while outside parties are threatening to overturn said long-held values.  If those comics re-enforce gender norms and 50's values, then all the better for their aging audience.

While there were token statements of support for Feminism, the majority politics of the comics page remained sexist behind the scenes.  That's also not accounting for the numerous unreported accounts of elder cartoonists demonizing the competition for not being "team players" from an openly hostile comics world
who were upset at the presence of women for "violating" what was mostly a male profession, and thus, degrading their profession.  As if the majority of their daily output wasn't subject to scrutiny.

Despite all the advantages men have gotten, they won't hesitate to put down their reputation, even if it means browbeating potentially worthy competitors.  After all, if other "weaker" people managed to succeed in ways they weren't able to achieve, that would invalidate all their claims, and make all their effort be for nothing.  To exert their fragile superiority, they will discredit women's research, no matter how much they agree with it, or openly plagiarize their groundbreaking research into previously unexplored territory.  Only made possible, from seeing the data from a previously unrecognized view that only gained credence when given a male name attached to it.  Go ahead, name the most famous women scientists who aren't Marie Curie (defaulted because of her husband's unintentional influence).  Apparently, discovering Pulsars, Bacterial Viruses, Nuclear Fission and Chromosomes, as well as Stem-cell research, Breast Cancer treatment and the discovery of AIDS isn't considered worthy of immortalization unless you're a man.

And if any complaints come up?  Women are silenced by the claim that they're making too much out of an insignificant thing, and talking too much.  A study conducted about Mansplaining showed that in cases where there were men and women talking about their fields, men were more likely to interrupt women in telling them exactly where they were getting facts wrong, even if they were experts in the subject.  The fallacious expectation is that women will just ramble on and on, constantly putting down the man, so the man should get their opinion out first, otherwise they won't be heard in the first place.

Even Disney Princess female leads such as Frozen had their dialogue dominated by males by 59%.  And gender-neutral scripts were outright turned down by Hollywood directors who were convinced that audiences (i.e., the typical target audience of 18-39-old Males) wouldn't be interested in any scenes that had women talking about seemingly insignificant details not related to the overall plot.  Even if those women had relevant scenes, they were considered less significant, simply because they were female.  Because unless the topic happens to be men, audience's interests would glaze and wander off if anything uninteresting happened for a fraction of a second not filled by explosions.

The default target audience type has always been a Male for so long, that venturing out into unexplored territory feels like taking a step onto a broken glass floor.  Nevermind that neglected people have been wandering around a broken glass ceiling for ages.  When a certain gender is marginalized to the extent of all others, diversifying can be considered risky.  Women are allowed to like guy's stuff, but guys are ostracized if they admit they like stuff aimed at... girls.  And even when girls like a guy show, they're discouraged if they outnumber the boy audience because "Girls don't buy toys", even though they will buy other merchandise related to their favorite hobbies.  But aiming at other markets is too difficult for these executives.

As a result of having been pandered to for so long, men instantaneously feel left out if there's any attempt at branching out to less developed minorities who haven't gotten as much screen time.  Chalk this down to reptilian brain mentality.  If women have something, or are part of a group that excludes men, no matter how insignificant, they instantly want to be part of it.  Unless it deals with menstrual cycles and bodily functions.

There's a certain fear that men are being emasculated by the very presence of women, that if they admitted there were certain faults that needed to be improved upon, and not just say "sorry" and move on for the sake of some nookie, they would be constantly harped upon for not being good enough in the first place.

As if women's worth was reduced to being little more than arm candy or trophy wives for the male gaze.  As far as they're concerned, they've already gotten their worth by latching onto the most successful men.  What more validation do they need?  Surely their silly little opinions wouldn't matter for much, would they?  Given the gains that women had gotten, what more could they possibly want?

Comic News Summaries

One of the things I regret that other countries have more of that we don't is the news summarized up in comics.  Taiwan has their insane Sims-based version of the news and Japan is known to have the headlines converted into Manga.  The closest we've got to that are editorial cartoons, which can give the public reaction to the subject, but not really give any context to the material in question.  Unless you're already familiar with the latest hype, much of what's being shown may not make much sense, especially if they're seen years later after the shock has worn off and the world has forgotten what's happened.  Fortunately, there's still other comics that I'm reminded of that perfectly parallel these kinds of situations.  Unfortunately, these incidents happen rarely, so I have to take opportunity of the chance when it happens.

Just recently, there was some controversy over a news announcer who proudly proclaimed that the appearance of a Black Santa was an aberration.  (Equally disingenuous along those lines is the claim that Jesus was White, when it's more likely that his skin was more likely to be darker given the region he was in, before becoming whitewashed into the Hippie-Boy we know today.)  To further add to the controversy, there was an Indiana University that had a Jazz-playing Black Santa on a bulletin board with questioning statements of whether such a person would be suitable for the job, inferring that a Black man would be more likely to visit the Ghetto and steal your valuables.

Such a broad claim is arbitrary when it's more likely that potential thieves are more likely to be white, since no one would think twice about a suspicious festive man with a loaded sack of gifts.  After all, who do you think is more likely to be stopped on in the streets?

Then there was the harrowing tale of Sexual Harassment at a Comic Convention where a female comic creator was routinely hit on and put down by a fellow male comic creator.  I suspect the amount of natural teasing (which has never felt natural to me) is so ingrained in male mentality that their offensive treatment towards women is their default setting.  As has often been pointed out, their passive-aggressive hostile behavior would be considered completely inappropriate if vented towards men.  You never hear of male CEOs being described by the kind of suit they wear, but that double standard is always used to describe a female power figure.  Sadly, this isn't the exception to the rule.  There have been untold accounts of men blatantly attempting unforward advances towards the fairer sex while casually dismissing their work as inferior and any claim of abuse as being completely irrational.

Even with great empathy and understanding, it's difficult for men to have any idea of how off-putting this unwanted attention can be, given how much of a attention magnet they tend to be.  It wasn't until I reached the end of this Posy comic that I understood how unusual the above scenario was, since it looked perfectly normal to me.

Lastly, to the surprise of no one...

As long as we're getting closer to the New Year, I might as well show some Prescient MAD predictions.  The magazine is known for creating fanciful horoscopes into the future with amusing plausible outcomes of tomorrow today.  But there are times when their other parodic features can either wind up being completely spot on (or be fodder for inspiration) for the following.

In a list of awful TV shows that only lasted one episode, attention was paid to a notable show titled Heil Honey, I’m Home!, which was basically putting Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun in a sitcom setting with Jewish neighbors where wacky shenanigans would happen.  You'd think this tasteless episode would be the result of ignorance in the same vein of Hogan's Heroes, but this was shown in the enlightened age of 1990.  To make matters worse, many of the Nazis portrayed on these shows were played by none other but actual Jewish people who took Mel Brooks' The Producers level of embarrassment to full effect.  The only thing that could be more embarrassing would be if Jews were responsible for inventing the fetish dominatrix Vitch of Concentration Camps.  Oh wait, it turns out they actually were, and this blatant spread of pornography was the only window to spreading information of the horrors that happened at the time.  Which goes to prove that the fastest way to spread a new piece of technology is to show some skin on it.  The internet only started out as a forum for nerds to talk in Compu speak until somebody figured out the Turing code for showing pictures and things evolved (devolved?) from there.

In MAD there was an article on Future Groundbreaking Sitcoms, which ended with... well, see for yourself.

Lastly, there's the Minute Maid commercial where Popeye and Bluto were on much... friendlier terms with each other than usual.  I'll just leave this here to jog your memory.

Apart from the Quaker Oats commercials where Popeye had a temporary change of diet, this could count as an extreme example of character assassination were it not for Popeye's natural flexibility to adapt to any situation no matter how absurd.  Obviously the inspiration for this commercial came from the MAD article about the Rarest Animation Cels in History.  Any guesses whether there would be any Cels of the above commercial in an age of Computer colouring?  If so, the claim could still be entirely valid.

In an age where Slash fiction between characters of the same sex even happen to glance at each other from across a distance (it doesn't even have to be on the same continent or planet) you're sure to find reams of text devoted to the obvious forbidden love that's just threatening to tear apart the fabric of society.  Yaoi and Brokeback Mountain just made an underground obsession culturally acceptable, even if some courts show reluctance to let same-sex marriages become a reality.

You may regret asking that question, Irving.

Expanded and Condensed Similar Ideas

One of the things I outlined in Mathematical Equivalence of Comics (one of my blog posts that I'm most proud of), is that there were comic pages tackling topics of varying length depending on the kind of comic used.  Something I'd like to expand on is that there are some ideas conveyed through comics that some cartoonists may choose to portray a message that depending on how much of the message they want to get across.

It's not unusual for cartoonists across different continents to express similar sentiments since they display universal themes.  One of the hallmarks of a good author is how effective they are in stealing other's ideas and passing it off as their own.  If they're good at it, they won't be called out on their plagiarism until they're dead.  If they're especially good, posthumous criticism won't deter their fans from enjoying their work at all.  "Stealing from one author is plagiarism.  Stealing from multiple is research."  In other circles, you get the rare case where you have the same idea, but expressed in a different way.

There was a Feiffer comic about a man who continued to write harsh criticism of people in power, even as they continued to express their dissatisfaction upon his efforts.  Until one day when the higher-ups decided to change their tactics.  It makes for a somewhat sobering read.

But many people might not want to slog through what would be an intimidating wall of text with static narrative.  So rather, Quino manages to accomplish what Feiffer did with the barest amount of introductory exposition allowed, which results in a more dramatic and enlightening coverage of the same issues.

In this Posy comic, the adults talk among themselves about the lessons enforced upon the children on the meaning of animal life and mortality.

Now compare that with this For Better or for Worse Sunday comic.  There was some discussion about how Grandma's fantastical telling of God painting the leaves individually was somehow less worthy compared to Elly's rational explanation of how nature works.  It reminded me of a line from the novel Life of Pi where the Indian boy dreaded the day where all sense of wonder would be lost to the dry statistical analysis of reality.

Even though people know that Walt Disney was cremated, they still like to believe in the urban legend that his frozen head is cryogenically frozen beneath Disneyland.  The explosion of Science Fiction has meant that understanding how the universe works has also undermined the exploration of said universe.  There's little to no possibility of Flash Gordon-style adventures happening anytime in the future.  Then again, there's still believers in the Flat Earth Society and Hollow Earth theory, so sudden acceptance of rational thought isn't a possibility anytime soon.

There was a recent news article about how China was attempting to stop people from speeding by having fake police cars along the highway.  Sure, you could go ahead and zoom past an empty police car, but would you want to take the risk?  Naturally, this reminded me of two relevant comics about deterrence through false imagery.

While Don Martin uses fake policemen as a deterrent from punk gangs, Broom Hilda goes in the opposite direction for security.

MAD's Al Jaffee is well known for his many contributions to the magazine, especially his MAD fold-ins, MAD inventions and of course, his Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions.

Although Al Jaffee didn't invent the concept of Snappy Answers (it may have originated as early as Foolish Questions by Rube Goldberg), he's strongly associated with the joke.  Near the end of a Comics Journal interview, he mentioned a fan who gave him a typical SATSQ book with all the blank balloons filled in with repetitions of the question itself.

Other than repeating the question back verbatim like a Smartbot, you might be wondering how you could possibly make an already short joke shorter.  Herman found an alternate way with one minor difference - by eliminating the snappy answer entirely.  Rather than the answer, the joke takes the form of the question, since the answer would be completely obvious to anyone.

Missing European Pages

In one of my previous posts, I lamented how there were various pages of minor artwork that for one reason or another, weren't reproduced in the English versions.

However, what I'd like to focus on is something slightly different.  Here's an example of a two-pager from a gag-based comic, Melusine.

When I first read the Cinebook version, I thought it was censored at first, since they went to the trouble of skipping ahead to the later volumes, because the cute redheaded witch had a tendency to sleep in the buff.  But I went back and checked the original French books, and was surprised to see that it was just like that in the album, even though it was different in the magazine.

By sheer chance, I had the very issue this appeared in, and knew something was off, because it "sounded" different visually.  Just why the other contestants were omitted and the last page expanded to twice its length is something that escapes me entirely.  This isn't the only exception.  There are other instances where a page is modified to reasonable expectations.  In Papercutz's book, Apprentice Smurf, the ending had a random Smurf chasing a butterfly.

But in the original, below the panel, there were some runic scripture of a Smurfic nature.  Chances are this was considered too difficult or obscure to photoshop properly, and so they went with something lighter.

While the Smurfs are essentially a children's property, they're never better than when they're sophisticated satirical takes on society as a whole.  In the Simpsons' 1st season, they were represented via expys in The Happy Little Elves.  While the concept of banal animation was abandoned in favor of Itchy & Scratchy, I kind of lamented that Bart and Lisa would never get a chance to read the comics the Elves originally came from, and be surprised at how dark and mature the original stuff was, and how the show greatly watered down the majority of its commentary plots.  But that's just a pipe dream.

In the latest Smurf book, Smurf Soup, the backup story The Clockwork Smurf (a revised title that I actually approve, given the Medieval setting) has this single page title...

Which is just a condensed version of this widely blank double-page spread.

Upon reflection, it could be considered creative editing so as not to prematurely show Baby Smurf, who'd be the main focus of the next book.  But that can't be, because Baby Smurf is clearly visible at the bottom of the second panel of the first page here.

That's what comes out of reprinting the Smurf volumes out of chronological order.  In this scene, we see Handy Smurf complaining about being constantly distracted by menial tasks while he could be focused on doing more productive work.  (We've all been there)  With this innocuous suggestion, he sets to work all night long on a Smurfoid that'll do all his boring duties for him.  Right away, it doesn't seem to work, but after some self-programming, it fixes whatever glitches and bugs its creator failed to catch the first time around, and goes about cheerfully doing it's programmed duties.  Not a bad start for a first attempt at A.I. programming.

But Handy Smurf shouldn't feel too proud of his accomplishment, because Gargamel manages to create an evil robot duplicate.  Out of clay, no less.  It should be pointed out that Gargamel has more success in creating artificial Smurfs than actually capturing Smurfs.  Smurfette, Clockwork Smurf, and even himself.  Given that his alchemy recipe for gold calls for a Smurf, you'd think he'd save himself the trouble by making one for personal use, unless the recipe needs an actual Smurf, and not a hastily created copy.  Chances are that he's more interested in getting revenge on the Smurfs for slighting him, even though every attempt he's taken has further reduced him to a pathetic villain.

What was left out when the village went back to normal was a potentially unsettling epilogue:

To recap, Handy Smurf created a mechanical Smurf overnight that not only figured out what was wrong with itself, but also managed to develop emotions and a personality.  And now that it's doing the task it's been programmed for, it's starting to rebel against its orders.  This setup has Terminator warning signs flashing everywhere, but don't worry - like all technological Out-of-Place Artifacts, the Clockwork Smurf never appears again after this.

As long as we're talking about Smurfs, I might as well point out another quotation mistake.  Here, where Gargamel is trying to appeal to Bigmouth's hungry nature by selling him on a delicious meal, he's just basically repeating Bigmouth's question before he has a chance to answer.  In the original French middle panel, he says "SMURF SOUP!", which leads to Bigmouth asking what it's made out of.  Three guesses what the secret ingredient is.

Posy Simmonds first made her mark on the comics literary world with her modern-day take of Madame Bovary with her Gemma Bovary, whose cover can be seen front and center in this latest version, displaying her most prominent features.

But it lacks the subtle tones of the original cover, which showed not just the scandalous woman out in the countryside, but also the hot water bottle she'd brought alongside her while she wore nothing but lingerie underneath her coat while trysting to her not-so secret lover.

When I heard news that there would be a comprehensive collection of Posy Simmond's early works, I was rather excited because I thought the Posy Omnibus would be a chronological collection of all the work she'd done for the Guardian, since there were several strips that seemed thematically similar, and would've been nice to see the progress of a creeping narrative flow throughout.  Instead, it's just a combination of her past books, minus the front and back covers.


Personally, I found the first book, Mrs. Weber's Diary to be the weakest of the bunch, since the comics were divided into double-page spreads with notes in notebook form, such as shopping lists, appointment times and schedules that oftentimes, bore little relation to what was happening on the page, and were very visually distracting.  This isn't made any easier with Mrs. Weber's husband going off into philosophical analytical observations that  defy any logical comprehension.  An example would go as follows:

"What astounding insight, Wendy!  We can see it as a transplanar cultural model... the mediator between nature outside & culture inside!  The blind translates the window into a mirror of... attitudes totalisantes, recording our passage from ignorance to enlightenment!"

Don't ask him how he feels about washing the dishes.

And that's his positive reaction to the new blind roller pattern.  Can you understand any of the above?  I sure as hell can't.  The only way you'd get to see any of the covers is if you'd managed to buy yourself a copy, and the same goes for the back as well.


There's the transitional sense you get when you go from the front cover to the titled picture inside.  Without that setup, the intended resonance is lost.


While the majority of the previous comic collections were combined into one neat package, for some reason, this mini comic below was left out entirely.  Since it's a mini-strip that doesn't have any of the main characters (the role would naturally go to Stanhope Wright, who's been shown to engage in these kinds of situations), and isn't particularly funny, it seems like an odd omission.  Whether it fit within the tone of the rest of the book or not is up to debate.

The remaining covers I don't have can be seen in the sidebar of this Posy Simmonds interview.