Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau


Comments (15) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. rayannina

    rayannina said, over 5 years ago

    Still angry … justifiably, perhaps, but angry.

  2. Lewreader

    Lewreader said, over 5 years ago

    In the last 100 of 6000 years of recorded history, a woman is no longer her father’s/husbands property. can no longer be beat with a sick “no thicker than her husband’s thumb”, vote, drive, and enter professions other than nursing and teaching. Was Rome built in 100 years? Babe, people and march and chant, “We want it all, We want it now!”, but wake up to reality.Reality is a woman getting a letter that says, “Greeting, You have been chosen by you friends and neighbors”. Reality is, “this Court awards custody to Mr Father due to education and economic factors.” Reality is “This Court Marshall finds Cpl Woman guilty of willful abuse of government property by becoming pregnant without her CO’s permission. and is sentenced to 6 months in the stockade, forfeiture of rank and pay. The child shall go to DCF.” That’s reality/equality.

  3. TheSkulker

    TheSkulker said, over 5 years ago

    That attitude is probably why, at 37, you are single and living in your mom’s basement!

  4. Thirdguy

    Thirdguy said, over 5 years ago


    Lew is WAY older than 37, probably in a nursing home, and you can always tell when he hasn’t gotten his meds yet.

  5. Alberto

    Alberto said, over 5 years ago

    Mel is ILL. Commenting on her behavior is like punishing someone for having flu. The mistake, if we want to find one, is having women in the Army – women give life, men kill the dynosaur. A weapon can be used by both sexes, but the same is true for knitting needles, yet very few men knit their cardigan. Putting a normal, balanced woman in an environment of aggression and killing machines creates more stress than in the male counterpart – even more when being a soldier is a paid job and not an imposed, emergency draft. Earning your family bread by killing other people has rarely been a female occupation.

  6. Sandfan

    Sandfan said, over 5 years ago

    Good point. Islam treats women worse than the way blacks were treated during segregation.

  7. nighthawks

    nighthawks GoComics PRO Member said, over 5 years ago

    as an ex-letter carrier, you are besmirching the rest of us.

  8. jrmerm

    jrmerm said, over 5 years ago

    I hope Mel is not too upset with Toby. Different people have different ideas on what they’d like to have for chow.

  9. R. Guy Slater

    R. Guy Slater said, over 5 years ago



    A couple of comments about your posting.

    “Reality is “This Court Marshall (sic) finds Cpl woman guilty of willful abuse of government property by becoming pregnant without her CO’s permission, and is sentenced to 6 months in the stockade, forfeiture of rank and pay. The child shall go to DFC.”

    The phrase is “Courts Martial,” not “Court Marshall.” If you’re the old “lifer” I think that you are, you ought to know better!

    Next, your “sentencing” would only be applicable if: a) a male soldier would receive the same punishment for impregnating a female (military or civilian), and b) if “CO’s” (Commanding Officers) still had the authority to have say over the personal lives of their troops in this way. I was Active Duty Army for over 18 years (before I was medically retired in 86 for injuries suffered in Vietnam in 71) and was married twice wile on duty. In neither case was “permission” by my CO required. The first time I married, I even tried to follow military tradition, and asked for permission. My CO told me to get the hell out of his office, as he did not have the authority to either grant or deny requested permission.

    As a courts martial is a Federal court, and DFC (whatever it stands for) relates to a State institution, this sentencing sould be tossed by the Conveining Authority, because the Cout of Military Appeals certainly would!

  10. R. Guy Slater

    R. Guy Slater said, over 5 years ago

    General comment.

    I think almost everyone is missing a subtle point being made by GT. The Army, in its infinite wisdom (THAT is an oxymoron iif I ever heard one!) decided to take the insignia of rank off the collar of the fatigue uniform, and place it in the middle of the chest. Must have been a man with a wicked sense of humor, for it then becomes necessary for a soldier to address any female soldier thus dressed to, at the very least, focus his attention on her breast area. Kind of hard for a woman to tell a man to “look up here,” isn’t it?

    Having served with the Army in transition in the early 70’s from a male oriented force, with a Woman’s Army Corps (WAC), and having been married for much of my career, I came to the following conclusions long ago, that I still find true today. The military should ban its members from marriage: it is difficult, if not impossible to be a dedicated husband or wife when the command demads that loyality to it comes first. (BTW 2nd wife was also a soldier for the first 11 years of our marriage.) It is even more difficult to be a dedicated parent while on active duty, especially when “duty comes first.”

    Along with that, let’s face reality, young men and women have a built in drive to have sex, and sex leads to pregnancy. Along with a ban on marriage, I would also encourage the military to provide temporary sterilization of new recruits with the reversal procedure being part of the out-processing from the service. We would no longer have to provide for housing allowances, or “subsistance” (pay to eat away from the “mess hall” (I hate the PC term “dinning facility!”), dependant medical care or schools. Nor would the US ever again have to face the aftermath of what to do about children born in foreign lands to native women, fathered by American soldiers (the denial for many years, by the US Government, of recognition to “Amerasian” children from Vietnam is one of the most shameful abuses by or government since the inturment of Japanese-Americans during WW II.)

    If the military bosses had the intestinal fortitude to issue orders like these, the outcry would be great, but the future benefits to the American Public, who, afterall, foot the bill, would be even greater.

  11. Lewreader

    Lewreader said, over 5 years ago

    @R. Guy Slater

    I was written up for "Willful destruction of government property " for getting a sunburn. I was unable to do my duties. I think the military might see pregnancy as willful.

  12. RinaFarina

    RinaFarina said, over 5 years ago

    @alberto: you way underestimate the effect of “putting a normal, balanced man in an environment of aggression and killing machines”. It isn’t so great for men either.

  13. Alberto

    Alberto said, over 5 years ago

    @RinaFarina: I agree with you. Yet, if history teaches anything, systematic unnecessary killing has always been associated with testosterone. A woman can be even more ferocius than a man in particular occasions (revolutions, defense of the kids, fighting for an attacked home Country), but violence AS A JOB (soldiers) or a pastime (gladiators, real or TV) has always been a manly thing. The problem is that humans differ from animals in that animals don’t have UNNECESSARY violence. They are hungry, they are scared, they need room – they kill; and then it’s all over, you can see the lion drinking at the same pond with the antelope, if the lion has eaten enough. Man on the contrary kills for ideology, politics, religion, color of the skin, economic organisation: useless and energy-consuming violence that brings no results aother than stress

  14. DisposableTeen

    DisposableTeen said, over 5 years ago

    Off to a good start.

  15. natureboyfig4

    natureboyfig4 GoComics PRO Member said, over 5 years ago

    She’s standing, he’s sitting. They’re eye-level. Cut him some slack.

  16. Refresh Comments.