Bioethics, healthcare policy, and related issues.
Not sure what to say about this:
For those who don’t recognize it, this is a recent strip of a comic called “Stone Soup”. It’s a “crazy family life” comic in which the middle-aged parents deal with the whacky antics of their kids, relatives, and co-workers. It’s pretty middle-of-the-road, though far from “Family Circle” or “Cathy” territory. You’d have to look hard to find a political edge to it, but it has a kind of “post-feminist” sensibility: both of the main female characters work while rasing kids as single moms (one has since married), there is a grandmother and a nephew living with the sisters as extended family, the father character really wants to be involved with his step-kids . . . . The bio of the strip creator (Jan Eliot) says she majored in Women’s Studies and raised two kids as a single mother for years while trying to get her comic strip off the ground; from all this I expect more of a “Go, Girl!” edge to the comic than it really seems to have.
So, about a week ago, the strip started a story arc in which the married sister becomes unexpectedly pregnant – and is clearly hating it. Neither she nor her husband planned for or want another child (they are raising two who are depicted as typical comic-strip-child succubi). She spends the next few strips becoming increasingly frantic about the burdens and disruption another child will cause, as every single one of her relatives, neighbors, and co-workers chimes in with unwanted commentary. Yesterday, she burst into the above freak-out, and continues it today:
This seems a little more resigned than before, but both of them clearly wish things were otherwise. So the obvious question is: why shouldn’t they be? But that’s the one thought nobody in this strip seems to have entertained in the slightest degree.
I would venture to say there is no fictional female two-dimensional newspaper comic strip character in America right now who more desperately needs an abortion than this woman. But she shows no sign of even considering it. She, her husband, her semi-progressive mother, and the legions of nosy neighbors have all assumed without the slightest consideration that “inconveniently pregnant against your will” obviously entails “having and raising an unplanned child you don’t want and can’t deal with” – and that that is not only obligatory, not merely right for you whether you think so or not, but, in fact, so inevitable that the alternatives literally don’t exist. The pregnant character precisely articulates all the reasons why she doesn’t want to have a baby and shouldn’t, but never once articulates the idea that she doesn’t choose to have a baby and won’t for just those same reasons. She willingly stereotypes herself with misogynist biological myths (“Pregnancy makes me crazy”; “Hormones are flying”; being unhappy with pregnancy is “abnormal”) and bows her head to the yoke. (Her sister helps by commiserating with the man in her life that she’s “high maintenance”.)
I may be obsessing a bit too much over an obscure comic strip, but I don’t think so. It has been widely remarked what a visceral impact Doonesbury‘s ongoing story of B.D.’s Iraq-war injury has had, on the public and on veterans. Fully 34 years ago, almost to the week, the TV show Maude made history by presenting a strong female character’s choice to have an abortion; the episode provoked a predictable outrage from the predictably outrageable, but it was brave and helpful for them to do it. Popular entertainment has always drawn from real life, and often to exemplary effect . . . all of which is to say that comic strips and comdey shows are and have been very good places for sharp analysis of the strains that make up human lives. Stone Soup could be part of that history if Eliot chose to make it so.
It’s true that Doonesbury and Maude included characters with much more openly political sensibilities than Stone Soup, but in giving her character an unwanted pregnancy Eliot is forcing her into just as politicized a situation as Maude’s or B.D.’s – she is just choosing to let her character fall into an unwanted solution to her problem by refusing to acknowledge or address her more controversial options. Apparently the Women’s Studies major has to be reminded, in the 21st century, what Normal Lear knew without having to be told in the 70s – that the personal is political whether you like it or not.
I would like to see the Stone Soup character come to her senses and have the abortion she obviously wants. I’d like to see the letters of complaint and subscription cancellations. I’d like to see the right-wing fruitcakes pontificating about yet another fictional failure to live by their rules (remember Dan Quayle’s grandstanding over Murphy Brown‘s decision to have a child? – I really want to see them shit themselves over a cartoon character’s decision not to). I’d like a few hundred thousand people to read that decisions are a part of life and that having the freedom to make them is central to living as an adult with a life of one’s own. The more those obvious truths become a part of life in every place we see it – on TV, in the funny papers, and elsewhere – the less entrenched becomes the idea that women’s freedom is some sort of aberration. That would put a smile on my face.
UPDATE: I e-mailed Jan Eliot, asking for her reaction, and she sent me a polite reply. Her major point was this:
Well, you’re a man. Women understand the mixed reaction to pregnancy. It doesn’t mean they don’t want the baby. It’s hormones, hormones, hormones on top of surprise and getting used to the idea of something unplanned. Lots of us were unplanned, lots of our children were unplanned. It’s not always something we’d reverse.
Those are points well taken (though I still think “hormones, hormones, hormones” is both a sloppy stereotype and a well-worn sexist trope). She also declines to torpedo her own strip by inviting a contoversy that could result in cancelled subscriptions, in which regard again she has an understandable point. But as I noted, others have done so, and I keep wanting to see in this strip an antidote to the saccharine conservatism-by-default that marks most comics, especially in regard of their female characters. I mean, Garry Trudeau can’t carry the whole load forever.
But Eliot makes an important statement above: “Women understand the mixed reaction to pregnancy. . . . [L]ots of our children were unplanned. It’s not always something we’d reverse.” One of the more frustrating mental gaps endemic among anti-choicers is their inability to understand that women can have mixed feelings about abortion without making it a bad choice – that one can regret the necessity of a choice one very much endorses, or indeed even wish things could be otherwise without undercutting the validity of the decision made in the circumstances at hand. It’s important then to realize the same can be true in the case of a decision made to bring an unplanned pregnancy to term. The fact that this character didn’t want to be pregnant, or is, even, overwhelmed by the enormity of the changes it comprehends, doesn’t mean she can’t choose to follow through with it. It is characteristic of anti-choicers to insist that only one choice, in the face of an unwanted pregnancy, can be right; the pro-choice position requires recognizing that imperfect outcomes can still be valid, no matter which direction the woman in question decides to go.
As a closing note, I still don’t see anything in the strip that suggests this character really is embracing her pregnancy even with reluctance, or that she has given any consideration to ending it. And that does still seem like conservatism-by-default, to me, but, as Eliot notes, that is not the same as an invalid or unsupportable outcome.
12 Responses to “Forced Pregnancy in the Funny Papers?”
Leave a Reply
Logged in as . Logout »
Theme copyright © 2002–2012Mike Little.
November 7th, 2006 at 3:04 PM
[...] This is quite a thought-provoking look at how an unwanted pregnancy is being portrayed in a syndicated comic strip. Especially this, from his update: But Eliot makes an important statement above: “Women understand the mixed reaction to pregnancy. . . . [L]ots of our children were unplanned. It’s not always something we’d reverse.” One of the more frustrating mental gaps endemic among anti-choicers is their inability to understand that women can have mixed feelings about abortion without making it a bad choice – that one can regret the necessity of a choice one very much endorses, or indeed even wish things could be otherwise without undercutting the validity of the decision made in the circumstances at hand. It’s important then to realize the same can be true in the case of a decision made to bring an unplanned pregnancy to term. The fact that this character didn’t want to be pregnant, or is, even, overwhelmed by the enormity of the changes it comprehends, doesn’t mean she can’t choose to follow through with it. It is characteristic of anti-choicers to insist that only one choice, in the face of an unwanted pregnancy, can be right; the pro-choice position requires recognizing that imperfect outcomes can still be valid, no matter which direction the woman in question decides to go. [...]
November 8th, 2006 at 6:14 AM
Ah let’s face it…abortion just isn’t cute. I’m not familiar with the cartoon, so I won’t attempt to unpack the cultural references contained within it. For truly funny, clever feminist women’s cartoons I stick to Jacky Fleming and Alison Bechdel. Always loving the posts KTK!
November 9th, 2006 at 9:10 PM
It seems strangely “anti-choice” that you have decided that the only option for his harried character is abortion.
Also, just because you feel something is misogynistic doesn’t make it so. I’ll be damned if someone tells me that the changes that occur in pregnancy are some sort of manifestation of my subconscious anti-women programming. Until you’ve carried a child and given birth, don’t belittle women by telling us that our real physiological changes are imaginary.
Oh yeah, and “You Go Girl” needent end in “to the abortion clinic”.
November 20th, 2006 at 5:58 PM
Where did he say that he thinks the “only option” for the character is abortion? It cracks me up when anti-choice people accuse the other side of being anti-choice.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:56 AM
Well, KTK does imply that abortion is the obvious means of not having a new kid. This does seem to overlook the possibility of adoption. Of course, adoption seems to consist of paying some of the costs of having a child with none of the things that might be considered benefits thereof.
Then again, what with the character being white and middle class, any child would likely be readily adopted, so at least a decision to give up for adoption, instead of abortion, doesn’t represent the sociental burden that an unwanted baby is.
As to hormones, I don’t think KTK denies their reality. I think he is being, as he often is (perhaps overmuch so), sensative to the implied rationale of a statement: “Oh, you’re just freaking out because of hormones.” is awfully close to “Oh, you’re just insane because of hormones; I guess you can’t make rational decisions as a legally competent adult.”
November 28th, 2006 at 9:25 PM
1: “If you can’t handle this, have you considered aborting it?”
2: “No! It’s my baby!”
1: “So why are you still complaining?”
2: “Because this changes everything!”
1: “Gah, just shut up!
…But reworded by someone who’s got experience writing comics.
It *would* be difficult to make her have an abortion and still be funny at all. But at the very least she ought to *mention* choice, and that can still be done humorously.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:29 AM
I’m behind the time on this one —
though I still think “hormones, hormones, hormones” is both a sloppy stereotype and a well-worn sexist trope
I’m going to say this as nicely as I can (and you know how I can be), I dont’ believe you have ever been pregnant or ever will be. So until males can be, back off. Hormones are very real. And a huge issue especially when pregnant. No sterotype.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:27 PM
Angie said:
“I’m going to say this as nicely as I can (and you know how I can be), I dont’ believe you have ever been pregnant or ever will be. So until males can be, back off. Hormones are very real. And a huge issue especially when pregnant. No sterotype.”
I think people are talking past each other here. It’s not that anyone is denying the existence of hormones (wouldn’t that be stupid), but that, in our culture, hormones, genes, and other little bio-chemical things are so often thought to explain away all of our behavior, instead of adding to our knowledge of our complex behavior (but it’s either hormones OR rational thought, genetics OR socialization…not some complex, intelligent mixture of the two).
And, unfortunately, the “hormones trope” has been used over a long period of time in this country to hurt women. What was one of the primary (faulty) reasons for women being excluded from the political process for so long in this country? “It’s there hormones! These women can’t be trusted to use their tiny minds b/c hormones rule women’s bodies! Can you imagine!?” And, of course, one of the only times “male hormones” are ever invoked to explain behavior is to excuse many men’s abherrent behavior toward women, especially with regard to sexual harassment and, yes, assault. “It’s just the testosterone working! You see, testosterone hates womens!”
So that’s why it’s troubling that during any episode of complex human emotion and thought that involves a woman (especially a pregnant one), someone can just say the word “hormones” (or, better yet, say it 3 times in a row), and we all go, “Oh, hormones! Well that explains everything. And for a moment I was going to actually listen to what that woman had to say!”
So, anyway, women’s hormones are definitely real. And so are there abilities to be thoughtful, intelligent people. And those two things are NOT mutually exclusive.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:35 PM
I used “there” instead of “their” a couple times in that last post. And wrote “abherrent behavior” instead of “aberrant behavior.” Typing too fast today
December 18th, 2006 at 11:17 PM
You’ve demonstrated with this hand-wringing post (and comments) why you could never author a comic strip. Generalizations are what make comics funny; abortion is only a laughing matter to the extreme Left; histrionics about an unexpected pregnancy would only raise the issue of abortion to someone on the exteme Left. Yikes.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Ned, what other than pregnancy should make one think of abortion?
Oh, and clearly somebody finds abortion a laughing matter.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I pity anybody who has to go through an abortion.