Beatrice comes from a background where she has access to affordable housing that doesn’t require her to work a high-income high-effort career or multiple jobs just to pay rent. She has a stable enough life that provides time to spend on personal hobbies rather than constantly working to cover expenses. Beatrice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by someone else. Beatrice does not have to work for a living.
Margaret is providing for herself, at the cost of luxury time. Her housing situation is less stable, and she’s aware of it, and feels trapped by the cost of it, which is her personal life and free time. Margaret has to work for a living.
Beatrice is privileged, and is judging Margaret’s life from her own place of privilege. Margaret is realizing that no matter how hard she works, she will never gain access to Beatrice’s level of privileged lifestyle, and that is crushing her soul.
Their outfits too. Bratrice is wearing a floral patterned more casual thing. Margaret is wearing something black and white that communicates “office job” a lot more directly. Could be taken that Margaret is just on break from work, or that she doesn’t have outfits that don’t double as work clothes.
A well-reasoned and thoughtful response, with a clear demonstration of an experienced writer’s capacity for nuance.
*Edit: sarcasm aside, my point is that the comic should be interpreted as an indictment of a socioeconomic system which forces people into situations where they must burn themselves up in order to survive. It should not be interpreted as an indictment of Margaret’s life choices. Margaret is doing her best in a world that has not provided her the opportunity to really flourish as an individual. To judge Margaret for this is at best narrow minded.
Demonise is a bit strong. They’re just offering an alternate interpretation that’s more negative than yours.
I think it has some merit. A lot of people are forced out of a work/life balance. I’ve tried to stay out of careers that demand my whole life, and I still get sucked into doing nothing but working from time to time. That’s life.
I can appreciate the fact that Beatrice has clearly stopped caring about the corporate machine, and that the author is trying to convey that we could all be the same, while still recognizing that the implication of the comic is a little half-baked due to the fact that the real-life financial capabilities of the working class are usually decided by how much they brown-nose and eat shit at work.
This sets two people up as enemies when one could be teaching and the other could be learning. Instead, they’re locked in a battle of semantics. The comic has a little bit to analyze, I think. This discussion could even go further.
2005 was a very different time than 2026.
If Beatrice was 20-30yoa, a restaurant paid her to afford a house. Margaret is clearly a decade younger Beatrice’s seniority. So there is a generation of difference in priorities and affordabilities.
This is an expression of privilege.
Beatrice comes from a background where she has access to affordable housing that doesn’t require her to work a high-income high-effort career or multiple jobs just to pay rent. She has a stable enough life that provides time to spend on personal hobbies rather than constantly working to cover expenses. Beatrice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by someone else. Beatrice does not have to work for a living.
Margaret is providing for herself, at the cost of luxury time. Her housing situation is less stable, and she’s aware of it, and feels trapped by the cost of it, which is her personal life and free time. Margaret has to work for a living.
Beatrice is privileged, and is judging Margaret’s life from her own place of privilege. Margaret is realizing that no matter how hard she works, she will never gain access to Beatrice’s level of privileged lifestyle, and that is crushing her soul.
Their outfits too. Bratrice is wearing a floral patterned more casual thing. Margaret is wearing something black and white that communicates “office job” a lot more directly. Could be taken that Margaret is just on break from work, or that she doesn’t have outfits that don’t double as work clothes.
At the very least, Beatrice has casual clothes.
Yeah, nah.
Nice attempt at trying to flip the message around tho.
A well-reasoned and thoughtful response, with a clear demonstration of an experienced writer’s capacity for nuance.
*Edit: sarcasm aside, my point is that the comic should be interpreted as an indictment of a socioeconomic system which forces people into situations where they must burn themselves up in order to survive. It should not be interpreted as an indictment of Margaret’s life choices. Margaret is doing her best in a world that has not provided her the opportunity to really flourish as an individual. To judge Margaret for this is at best narrow minded.
You’re trying to subvert the comic’s message to demonise it. Im sorry, was that meant to be met with an in-depth response?
Demonise is a bit strong. They’re just offering an alternate interpretation that’s more negative than yours.
I think it has some merit. A lot of people are forced out of a work/life balance. I’ve tried to stay out of careers that demand my whole life, and I still get sucked into doing nothing but working from time to time. That’s life.
I can appreciate the fact that Beatrice has clearly stopped caring about the corporate machine, and that the author is trying to convey that we could all be the same, while still recognizing that the implication of the comic is a little half-baked due to the fact that the real-life financial capabilities of the working class are usually decided by how much they brown-nose and eat shit at work.
This sets two people up as enemies when one could be teaching and the other could be learning. Instead, they’re locked in a battle of semantics. The comic has a little bit to analyze, I think. This discussion could even go further.
2005 was a very different time than 2026.
If Beatrice was 20-30yoa, a restaurant paid her to afford a house. Margaret is clearly a decade younger Beatrice’s seniority. So there is a generation of difference in priorities and affordabilities.