Daisy Duck's Diary

"It's a duck comic!"

"No! It's a hate crime!"

"Duck comic!"

"Hate crime!"

"Duck comic!"

"Hey, guys, guys, calm down--you're both right! Daisy Duck's Diary is a duck comic AND a hate crime!"
We'll be back after this important message: GURLS R DUMM:



It's quite obvious that somebody at Disney in the fifties had serious issues with women (I hope it's only one person). Sure, you can see casual chauvinism here there and everywhere, but this goes well beyond that. All you can do is stand back and gawk. It's true that nobody seemed to really know what to do with Daisy as a character (as we probably all know, Barks' lost ten-pager "Race for the Golden Apples" was supposedly rejected on the grounds that she was shown being insufficiently "lady-like"), but that is not much of an excuse.

You know, there are a number of Disney comics that, due to objectionable racial content, are today not allowed to be reprinted in the US. My understanding is that the current accord allows all Barks comics to be published, occasionally with minor censorship, but there's at least one Mickey Mouse serial, "In Search of Jungle Treasure," that remains on the blacklist (the beginning of "Monarch of Medioka" refers back to it--very frustrating for MM fans, I've no doubt).

Are these comics racially problematic? Yes, absolutely. But here's the thing: the racism is generally just incidental. Which is to say, you might see our heroes being menaced by cannibals, but these cannibals are just an obstacle to be overcome. They're not the main focus of the story; the point is not "ha ha! Indigenous people suck!" Whereas the focus of these old Daisy Duck's Diaries is very much "ha ha! Women suck!" And yet, I'm pretty sure there's no fiat against these latter. Of course, practically speaking, that doesn't matter; obviously, no modern publisher would consider reprinting them anyway. But it is an interesting illustration of the ways our sensitivities towards this kind of thing function selectively.

I should clarify here that I'm really only referring here to the first two issues of the DDD one-shot, published in 1954 and 1955, as illustrated by Dick Moores (I like to imagine that Moores was aware enough to be somewhat appalled at what he was being asked to illustrate, but even if so, the fact that he dutifully plowed on anyway doesn't seem terribly admirable). After that, someone at Western Publishing apparently had the brilliant realization that, huh--if we're trying to reach a female audience with these things, maybe spewing unbridled hatred at all things feminine isn't the right strategy. The later issues--drawn by Jack Bradbury, Pete Alvarado, Tony Strobl, and Carl Barks--are not totally unproblematic, but they are a quantum leap ahead of their predecessors, and some of them successfully depict Daisy as a genuinely strong, appealing character. I feel like I've used the following image elsewhere, but here it is again, 'cause I like it:



However, here at Duck Comics Revue, we're all about the low-hanging fruit, so let's take some potshots at one particularly hair-raising story--as rendered in Moores' inimitably hideous style. Like most such, this tale is untitled. Let us preface this by acknowledging that, yes, if you want to, you could posit that this story and others of its type were in fact written by some sort of subversive radical feminist who wanted to call attention to the disturbing nature of much of children's media. There's not much you can do with that, though--it's unfalsifiable, and lacking any concrete evidence to that effect, there's really not much point in dwelling on it. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that these stories were written absolutely straight.



LESSON ONE: Women: backstabbing bitches.



LESSON TWO: Women: Incredibly vapid and superficial. Actually, to be fair--you KNOW I'm all about fairness--it's not entirely clear to what extent Daisy is being mocked for shallowness and to what extent the author considers her alarm at having gained EIGHT! POUNDS! to be perfectly justified. But neither of these possibilities seems like a good thing, you know?

In passing, I will note this panel from a Barks one-pager, which would seem to indicate some disagreement about how much ducks in general are supposed to weigh.



'Course, this panel from ANOTHER Barks story, "The Tuckered Tiger," would seem to indicate a different notion of duckweight, since presumably Scrooge couldn't steam away a fourth of his body mass:



I DEMAND A FIRM ANSWER TO THIS PRESSING QUESTION.

N.E. Way:



So as I noted, you can take this all as mordant satire if you like, and the above image would seem to support that possibility, but within the context of the rest of the story and the OTHER Daisy stories that this writer would pen, I'm just not seeing it. And IF--big if--this IS a comment about consumerism's effect on us, it certainly doesn't detract from the comic's tone. Either way, it seems designed to just emphasize Daisy's weakness.

Bleh. Anyway, I'm going to skim over the bits where Daisy tries to use spa treatments to use weight, and get to the main meat of this gruesome tale.


Ah yes: Starvation! The old reliable!

She tries to watch TV, but, in a non-hilarious segment, she keeps seeing shows about food, which drives her insane with hunger (come on, guys--it's only supposed to be a few hours at most since she made this vow--aren't you pouring it on a li'l thick?).

So she gets Donald and the kids over to distract her, and we are treated to another, even more intensely non-hilarious segment in which Donald keeps inadvertently saying…well, see for yourself:



She's just deeply, DEEPLY infantilized. Here are some related images from other stories:











It's almost like there's a common theme here. You will note Donald's reaction in the above--he's mainly depicted in these stories as being sort of haplessly at the mercy of Daisy's insane whims. It's not particularly flattering to him, but as any radical feminist will be happy to inform you--over and over and over, most likely--patriarchy degrades us all.



Aw! Look how eager they are to help her with her anti-eating crusade! I know, I know--it is REALLY hard to read this in places and not think, there HAS to be some goddamn satire here SOMEWHERE. But I really do believe that this is just because we live in a (somewhat) different culture, and we just don't want to accept it. I'm pretty sure that their cheerfully enabling behavior is supposed to be entirely laudable, instead of seriously fucked-up.

More Daisy-humiliation coming up!



OH GOD NO. Just TRY to tell me there's not an unbearable element of quasi-sexual degradation here. Again, pretty sure we're meant to identify with Donald in the bottom right. Since when does Daisy have a dog named "Fido?" Since the author decided that this stunningly creepy allegedly-humorous action was a good idea, is since when. Don't expect to see or hear anything more from the dog.



Slightly less creepy on Daisy's part, but it makes her look even dumber/more infantile. It also makes Donald look like a complete psychopath. Tell me this doesn't look like we're verging on some Story of O shit.

So, to cut a long story slightly short, Donald locks her in her room. She escapes and, weighing herself again on a public scale, realizes that the previous one was wrong, and she hasn't gained weight after all. Huzzah!

But Donald, exhibiting every bit of understanding and sensitivity the rest of the story would lead you to expect, refuses to let her out of her room. Pretty sure this is actually illegal, you anonymous asshole. Anyway:




Yup. And that's that.

...

What, you're still here? No, seriously--those are the last panels. The story ends like that. Donald locks her in her room, and she has to eat her diary to keep from starving. And this is supposed to be a humorous denouement.

In summary: somebody thought this was a good story for young girls. Somebody else agreed to the extent that they fuckin' published it. The mind boggles like a motherfucker. Do you hate this anonymous author as much as I do? 'Cause I gotta tell you, I hate him a lot.

Still, however ugly this is, it's an aspect of Disney's past, and it should not be whitewashed. In a future entry, to get the bad taste out of all of our mouths, I'll take a look at a less-horrific Daisy story. But for now, we're just going to have to grin and bear it.