A lot of you called it that Donna would not be happy with her husband on the last page. A lot of people also threw the word "redemption" around. I would hesitate to go that far yet though. Maybe admitting that she shares the blame on this is a good step in the right direction (as is protecting Rudy from conversion camp), but it's not as though everything is resolved and Maria has returned. In fact, if she'd done this at any time in the last few years instead of right now - after the fact - Maria might even still be at home. I'm not saying she's irredeemable, but let's not pretend that this singular act makes everything before it okay. This is the start of a long process she needs to follow through on for it to matter.
That's why I think the silence in the last two panels is potentially more significant than most of the dialogue.
Donna has found her inner mother bear, and the timing couldn't be better. While it clearly ins't "redemption", its still something. I can't wait until the next strip, this is getting good
Actually the timing could have been a lot better, like, roughly 18 years earlier. Before she and her husband started mistreating their own children for being gay.
Well, she's headed in the right direction now she just has to not screw it up. This is sadly better than most homophobic parent situations turn out, so even if not redemption it's significant.
To me, this isn't about redemption or anything. That just needed to be said, and I'm glad Donna's acting as a proper parent ought for once (actually owning up to being wrong about something, etc), even if it could only be brought about by something this extreme, and still is by no means perfect (you can still see that Rudy's hurt by her saying she didn't want her kids to be gay). That being said, this could still get uglier...let's hope Norman storming off doesn't portend what I think it could.
True that Mrs Strongwell is far from redeemed , she is on the right path. I remember a time where I thought Aiken ( Rain's older brother) was irredeemable but he's put in a lot of effort and has tried to repair his relationship with Rain, so I have hope that Donna can at least do the right thing... And maybe (big maybe) redeem herself in the future
I have a theory about what happened, and where Maria is... and it involves Emily. I don't know if I got it right... but I have a few hunches on how to find her. It mostly involves the people she currently does consider her family. I doubt she'd just abandon them, even if she considers those related by blood mostly untrustable, excluding her brother.
Is it only me or do others also find the insistence that Rudy must "really" be transgender or genderfluid somewhat objectionable? After all, Rudy has been quite clear on this point. Shouldn't his opinion (clearly a well informed one) be respected?
Its not uncommon, especially in olden days, for gay bars to have drag queens who still consider themselves men, even when they could walk into an office building and not one person would notice anything different.
Because a lot of us understand going through that. There a joke that the difference between a cross dresser and a trans person is about two years, and that's got a lot of truth to that.
The only reason I never crossdressed is because I never felt like I had the opportunity. If Rudy did it once for the halloween party, or if they were doing it as a performative thing then sure you could say they're just a cross dresser or drag queen.
However when they went out last, they didn't want to draw lots of attention. It seemed more like they just wanted to live in a woman's shoes.
Can we please just have one GNC gay character? I'm tired of everyone and their mother viewing me with suspicion that I must be a woman/non binary because I like wearing women's clothes. Let Rudy be effeminate without insisting that he must really be trans. The film Gender Troubles: The Butches highlights exactly how harmful this "suspicious" line of questioning can be. The metaphor was imagine everyone asking you if you'll be dieting soon. Eventually, you feel pressured to diet when you weren't going to before. I know this is a trans-centric story but god, not everyone who is GNC is trans.
Different people are different. While it is true that a lot of trans people had 'crossdresser' as a step in their path, it's also true that there are crossdressers who never went trans. Also, even if Rudy decides in the future that "just likes wearing women's clothing" was a mistake, that's future Rudy. It is not respectful of current Rudy to be so confident that transition will happen.
I personally view "you're a crossdresser, so you must really be trans, because I was really trans when I was a crossdresser" to be potentially as objectionable as the view "you must really be straight, because I questioned my sexuality for a while, but decided I was straight." Of course, what actions result from the views is usually what is really objectionable or not, and usually, the actions from the latter view are worse than the former. But the potential is there.
It's nice to see that at least one of the parents care more about their children's wellbeing over their sexual orientation. Maybe Donna has a legitimate reason for not wanting her children to be gay. Maybe she knew somebody who was brutally murdered for being gay. Maybe after Maria is found, Donna will tell her children about that and how she doesn't want the same thing to happen to them. Donna can start being more accepting of Rudy and Maria being gay, even if she doesn't like it. It would be nice to see, and it would be a great way to start repair their relationship. I don't really care about Norman.
And then it turns out Donna's just a "love the winner hate the sin" type who just doesn't want to raise gays. Stop expecting so much from her just because she's a woman
@William... Callisto said there is no reason for not X (two negatives). You only took out one which changed what was said. I removed both which leaves "there is a reason for x" (I don't remember the logic term for it).
@Phrll: Taking out both also changes what was said. Double negative is exactly what you attempted to apply, but it is not appropriate here. William tired to explain that by showing that one negative was not the same as the other negative, so they don't negate.
Double negative is
There ain't no legitimate reason for X.
Removing that double negative is fine. It's still clearly not what the person wanted to say, but it's an appropriate application of the grammar rule.
There is a legitimate reason to never not X.
This is also an appropriate place to apply the double negative rule, and would only partially change the meaning. The correct translation would be
There is a legitimate reason to always X.
Just because there are multiple negatives in a sentence does not mean there is a double negative in the sentence. A double negative is only where you have multiple negatives on a single term in the sentence.
Nah, this is basically saying 'there isn't a reason someone should think 'i don't want my kids to be gay'' which definately isn't the same as 'i want my kids to be gay'
They've finally reached a crossroads. Soon they'll have to decide which is stronger: their hate for homosexuals, or their love for their children. Looks like they might just wind up choosing diverging paths...
Donna's finally standing up for her own interests. Re-reading this page, it just makes me think of Rain's mom. We haven't seen much of her, for fairly well-known reasons, the most probably being in a flashback to Aunt Fara dating (at the time) Vivian.
All the signs I can think of seem to point to all the asshole genes in Rain's family going back to her father. It makes me wonder: what if Rain's own mother had defended Rain in similar fashion so long ago...
this... brought strong emotional reaction from me.. i think i wish my dad would have stood up for me just once, instead of telling me privately to be strong...
Bearing their parent's bigotry certainly wasn't working.
Donna Strongwell: You'll get my unconditional love when you deserve it!
(on the other hand we already have Ana's father)
And while maybe she hasn't redeemed herself (yet), at least she is going down the right path
The only reason I never crossdressed is because I never felt like I had the opportunity. If Rudy did it once for the halloween party, or if they were doing it as a performative thing then sure you could say they're just a cross dresser or drag queen.
However when they went out last, they didn't want to draw lots of attention. It seemed more like they just wanted to live in a woman's shoes.
To Rain: Your parts don't define you, you define you.
To Rudy: Your parts don't define you, you define you. Unless you define you in a way consistent with your parts. Then we have to be careful.
Why are you so quick to ignore Rudy's opinion?
(This would be bad even if the vast majority of crossdressers went on to identify as trans.)
I personally view "you're a crossdresser, so you must really be trans, because I was really trans when I was a crossdresser" to be potentially as objectionable as the view "you must really be straight, because I questioned my sexuality for a while, but decided I was straight." Of course, what actions result from the views is usually what is really objectionable or not, and usually, the actions from the latter view are worse than the former. But the potential is there.
None.
I would prefer my children (if I had any) to be whatever they turn out to be, not what I want them to be.
There is no legitimate reason for X
does not equate to
There is a legitimate reason for not X
"Double negative" wasn't the right way to put it.
Double negative is
There ain't no legitimate reason for X.
Removing that double negative is fine. It's still clearly not what the person wanted to say, but it's an appropriate application of the grammar rule.
There is a legitimate reason to never not X.
This is also an appropriate place to apply the double negative rule, and would only partially change the meaning. The correct translation would be
There is a legitimate reason to always X.
Just because there are multiple negatives in a sentence does not mean there is a double negative in the sentence. A double negative is only where you have multiple negatives on a single term in the sentence.
not X is "not not wanting your children to be gay."
so not X is "wanting your children to be gay"
I did not change the meaning.
(
You may be thinking of the contrapositive:
not q implies not p
(p implies q) implies (not q implies not p)
is true. What we have here is the inverse (not p implies not q)
(p implies q) implies (not p implies not q) is false.
)
All the signs I can think of seem to point to all the asshole genes in Rain's family going back to her father. It makes me wonder: what if Rain's own mother had defended Rain in similar fashion so long ago...