Looks like we have a front-runner for this year's "Creepiest Unintentional Self-Revelation" award winner.
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
He shops in the little girl section. No wonder he's so whiney.
Though really, the ironic part is it is big business that makes trampy clothes for little girls. Clothes I might add usually stitched together in third world countries by other children. And the businesses probably got a tax break for doing so.
So it'll never stop no matter how much Tinny complains. Not while it's profit over morals anyways.
At least the little girls know to stay away when the pervy duck's lurking around.
And if I were a parent of a pre-teen girl in Columbus, Indiana, I wouldn't be letting her go shopping unaccompanied. God knows how many drunken afternoons Tinshley's whiled away in the Li'l Misses department.
Tsk tsk. The free market can do no wrong, Mallard.
Unless you can get morally outraged. That ties this to politics, because it is my fault, as a feminist church-ignoring liberal, that little girls wear big girl clothes.
Yes, the trend in girl's clothes is creepy, but god, he's just going about it wrong.
My friend who got pregnant in middle school (spring 8th grade) didn't wear "tart shorts".
Also, "back-to-school"? Bzzt! Wrong.
They're called "dress codes." They're called "uniforms."
Shorts are a pain to wear to school, because you never know what's long enough. Shirts must have sleeves and be long enough to cover your stomach. The 5th grade clothes look like blue jeans. What is sleazy about jeans? I guess hiphuggers or something, but again, they skin. Not allowed. Plus, 10 year olds don't have the necessary curves to support them.
This is a terrible comic. I thought there was a bed there - with the middle school sign as the headboard and the 5th grade one at the foot.
He draw the tops of pants (or shorts, or skirts) and some scraps of color for what I assume are shirts.
However, he does have a strawman. (strawstore?)
I've never seen these clothes on little kids. I've heard of it, but that's about it.
A bigger problem coming from these clothes is damage to little girl's self-image - let's start the eating disorders as soon as they can spell it! (Remember the Simpsons episode? "I heard she's down to her birth weight.")
And of course, it's all the feminists fault (girlz).
"Though really, the ironic part is it is big business that makes trampy clothes for little girls. Clothes I might add usually stitched together in third world countries by other children. And the businesses probably got a tax break for doing so."
You know, I was watching the CNN "Black in America" special yesterday, and one of the things they talked about seems to tie in to what's going on here. They were interviewing a former rapper who sang about what he felt were important issues, like the poverty and violence surrounding inner-city blacks. Naturally, his albums didn't sell. The record company passed him over in favor of the rappers who glorified sex, drugs, and violence.
It's really the same thing here. The companies are putting out these clothes because in modern America, that's what they think sells. But Mallard would never dare to question the all-knowing free market.
Even if you ignore the massive subtext, it's still some lazyass shit. People from all over the ideological spectrum have been bemoaning the sexualization of young girls forever. Which complaints Tinsley parrots without putting any sort of twist on it. Not that it's not a legitimate issue, but his approach is, predictably, totally limp. I could never have drawn a strip like this, because it never would even have occurred to me that I could pass something so obviously worthless off as real social commentary, let alone humor. I wonder if it takes effort to be this much of a hack, or whether it just comes naturally.
11 comments:
He shops in the little girl section. No wonder he's so whiney.
Though really, the ironic part is it is big business that makes trampy clothes for little girls. Clothes I might add usually stitched together in third world countries by other children. And the businesses probably got a tax break for doing so.
So it'll never stop no matter how much Tinny complains. Not while it's profit over morals anyways.
Creepiest Mallard since Dust Angels.
At least the little girls know to stay away when the pervy duck's lurking around.
And if I were a parent of a pre-teen girl in Columbus, Indiana, I wouldn't be letting her go shopping unaccompanied. God knows how many drunken afternoons Tinshley's whiled away in the Li'l Misses department.
Tomorrow's comic:
"Hi Mallard... I'm Chris Hansen. Please take a seat."
A middle-aged adult with no pants on, in the girl's clothing department.
Tomorrow's strip: how cruel cops are when they take down a pervo.
Tsk tsk. The free market can do no wrong, Mallard.
Unless you can get morally outraged. That ties this to politics, because it is my fault, as a feminist church-ignoring liberal, that little girls wear big girl clothes.
Yes, the trend in girl's clothes is creepy, but god, he's just going about it wrong.
My friend who got pregnant in middle school (spring 8th grade) didn't wear "tart shorts".
Also, "back-to-school"? Bzzt! Wrong.
They're called "dress codes." They're called "uniforms."
Shorts are a pain to wear to school, because you never know what's long enough. Shirts must have sleeves and be long enough to cover your stomach. The 5th grade clothes look like blue jeans. What is sleazy about jeans? I guess hiphuggers or something, but again, they skin. Not allowed. Plus, 10 year olds don't have the necessary curves to support them.
This is a terrible comic. I thought there was a bed there - with the middle school sign as the headboard and the 5th grade one at the foot.
He draw the tops of pants (or shorts, or skirts) and some scraps of color for what I assume are shirts.
However, he does have a strawman. (strawstore?)
I've never seen these clothes on little kids. I've heard of it, but that's about it.
A bigger problem coming from these clothes is damage to little girl's self-image - let's start the eating disorders as soon as they can spell it! (Remember the Simpsons episode? "I heard she's down to her birth weight.")
Way to make this less creepy - remember Rush?
Of course, school hasn't started yet, and this couldn't wait! No one's every addressed it before!
And of course, it's all the feminists fault (girlz).
"Though really, the ironic part is it is big business that makes trampy clothes for little girls. Clothes I might add usually stitched together in third world countries by other children. And the businesses probably got a tax break for doing so."
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!??!11/
Anon - Mallard hates America.
He's a commie and wants us all to dress a certain way. Especially the children.
You know, I was watching the CNN "Black in America" special yesterday, and one of the things they talked about seems to tie in to what's going on here. They were interviewing a former rapper who sang about what he felt were important issues, like the poverty and violence surrounding inner-city blacks. Naturally, his albums didn't sell. The record company passed him over in favor of the rappers who glorified sex, drugs, and violence.
It's really the same thing here. The companies are putting out these clothes because in modern America, that's what they think sells. But Mallard would never dare to question the all-knowing free market.
Even if you ignore the massive subtext, it's still some lazyass shit. People from all over the ideological spectrum have been bemoaning the sexualization of young girls forever. Which complaints Tinsley parrots without putting any sort of twist on it. Not that it's not a legitimate issue, but his approach is, predictably, totally limp. I could never have drawn a strip like this, because it never would even have occurred to me that I could pass something so obviously worthless off as real social commentary, let alone humor. I wonder if it takes effort to be this much of a hack, or whether it just comes naturally.
Post a Comment