The Daisy Duck Conundrum

[No Maam]

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine that I don't find people discussing too much, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

What I'm reffering to is a trope in western animation, especially prevalent in the 80's, but also surviving until the present in comic adaptations and the like, where you have a female character, who is in a relationship with a male character who is usually main also the main character.

In a situation where said male is even seen crossing the street with anything dressed in female clothes, the female character gets angry and jealous, and it possibly segments into Female on Male violence is comedy territory.

Whereas the female, whenever a more handsome/famous man shows up who'se even slightly interested in them, they will immediately start crawling all over them, not even acknowleding they should tell their male counterparts they're breaking up with them, and then when their new love interest turns out to be an asshole/liar/alien/what have you, they then nonchalantly go back to the main character without a word of apology, acting like the male character's recent display has earned them the extreme privilige of being in a relationship with them. :getlost:

I'm using Daisy Duck's name mostly cause I remember her doing that sort of thing, but it's prevalent even in half-forgotten stuff like Heathcliff (who'se "movie" I watched yesterday to ascertain just how much original footage there's even in it, considering it's just a clip show of old shorts they put into theaters and the answer is 4 and a half minutes).

[Mrs. Iceburg]

Okay. And what is it exactly that bothers you about this trope?

[Juvar]

@Mrs.:

Okay. And what is it exactly that bothers you about this trope?

Wait, seriously?

[Robby]

I'd be more concerned about Donald going around not wearing pants.

And does it count when Elmer Fudd falls for a cross-dressing Bugs Bunny?

[Nobodyman]

@RobbyBevard:

I'd be more concerned about Donald going around not wearing pants.

Funny how gloves tend to be a more urgent apparel than pants in the cartoon world.

Of course, Donald doesn't wear either.

[Gliblord]

Pants would spell serious trouble for duck butts

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@No:

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine that I don't find people discussing too much, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

What I'm reffering to is a trope in western animation, especially prevalent in the 80's, but also surviving until the present in comic adaptations and the like, where you have a female character, who is in a relationship with a male character who is usually main also the main character.

In a situation where said male is even seen crossing the street with anything dressed in female clothes, the female character gets angry and jealous, and it possibly segments into Female on Male violence is comedy territory.

Whereas the female, whenever a more handsome/famous man shows up who'se even slightly interested in them, they will immediately start crawling all over them, not even acknowleding they should tell their male counterparts they're breaking up with them, and then when their new love interest turns out to be an asshole/liar/alien/what have you, they then nonchalantly go back to the main character without a word of apology, acting like the male character's recent display has earned them the extreme privilige of being in a relationship with them. :getlost:

I'm using Daisy Duck's name mostly cause I remember her doing that sort of thing, but it's prevalent even in half-forgotten stuff like Heathcliff (who'se "movie" I watched yesterday to ascertain just how much original footage there's even in it, considering it's just a clip show of old shorts they put into theaters and the answer is 4 and a half minutes).

Face it, you can't resist that bill. It's just so BIG

[No Maam]

I know that I might be getting a bit too worked up about this but I swear I ran across this shit all the time and nobody ever brings it up.

And on the off-topic subject of clothes, what I don't understand is how we can't possibly show the Beagle Boys clearly without their "masks" on (even Don Rosa did that in L&TOSMD), when it's just an incredibly thin strap.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@RobbyBevard:

I'd be more concerned about Donald going around not wearing pants.

And does it count when Elmer Fudd falls for a cross-dressing Bugs Bunny?

I do wonder about both mixed "race" relationships in the DT/DD universe, and also why it's the dog/pig people who have to wear pants but not the ducks.

Fricken nonconformists.

[TheCrystalShip]

I thought this thread was going to be about female characters who serve solely as love interests to the male protagonist.

[wolfwood]

I always thought it seemed arbitrary that Pluto is a pet, while Goofy is treated as a human

I mean both are dogs aren't they?

[Zack]

@Mrs.:

Okay. And what is it exactly that bothers you about this trope?

What bothers him is female on male violence being portrayed as ok I would assume based on No Maam's previous posting history about Nami? I can understand why it would bother someone though violence in all kinds of form can be depicted as humor. As for the thread, I pretty much came in assuming what Crys did (Watched Dredd and was glad to see it avert that trope), but it is refreshing to see a subject that's not really brought up a lot.

Off-topic: As for Goofy, I guess I always assumed his animal was a dog, though I never really looked more into it to really know what goofy was.

[No Maam]

@wolfwoof:

I always thought it seemed arbitrary that Pluto is a pet, while Goofy is treated as a human

I mean both are dogs aren't they?

I've been always bothered by the typical example people use in relation to this though. Where they list Mickey as a mouse, and Pluto as a Dog and then ask what Goofy is.

Cause obviously the more logical way is for both their examples to be the same group, for ex. Mickey and Goofy as antropomorphic animals.

And yes it is petty but it also drives me bonkers.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Zack:

What bothers him is female on male violence being portrayed as ok I would assume based on No Maam's previous posting history about Nami? I can understand why it would bother someone though violence in all kinds of form can be depicted as humor. As for the thread, I pretty much came in assuming what Crys did (Watched Dredd and was glad to see it avert that trope), but it is refreshing to see a subject that's not really brought up a lot.

Off-topic: As for Goofy, I guess I always assumed his animal was a dog, though I never really looked more into it to really know what goofy was.

Well that's an additional trope that is sometimes a part of this whole thing but what bothers me in this instance is the way female characters can openly cheat and/or dump their boyfriends without even telling them in the latter case, with no shame or regret come the first handsome guy and then go back to their old boyfriend once this new guy doesn't turn out, while not even acknowledging they might have done anything wrong in the first place….

but being extremely jealous and violence prone over their male counterpart assumedly cheating on them, as evidenced by being in the same timezone with anything dressed in female clothes.

Was that more coherent ?

[MasterKingJC]

@Nobodyman:

Funny how gloves tend to be a more urgent apparel than pants in the cartoon world.

Bugs made wearing only gloves cool before it was cool.

[Zack]

Yeah. Without thinking too much on it, I'd say it goes down to the male usually being the protagonist and humor. Being the protagonist, when some other guy comes into the relationship, it allows them to "defend" themselves by trying to win the girl back and get rid of the guy. In the end, it's considered just a good thing that they ended up with their girlfriend again. The portrayal with the females happen probably came from the old comedy routine of when seeing the girlfriend as overly possessive or easily jealous.

[King Cannon]

@TheCrystalShip:

I thought this thread was going to be about female characters who serve solely as love interests to the male protagonist.

If that was the case, I don't think Daisy Duck would be used as an example considering there's several better ones.

[Cyan D. Funk]

@wolfwoof:

I always thought it seemed arbitrary that Pluto is a pet, while Goofy is treated as a human

I mean both are dogs aren't they?

Four legs bad, two legs good

[King Cannon]

@wolfwoof:

I always thought it seemed arbitrary that Pluto is a pet, while Goofy is treated as a human

I mean both are dogs aren't they?

I guess this is relevant:

[valiantt]

This post is deleted!

[CCC]

…You do realize that the vast majority of the authors of stories that have such a ridiculous trope are men, right? This isn't the world of women flaunting its "power" (lol) and double standards and hypocrisy. It's male authors playing out childish scenarios where they see women as fickle objects to be won/controlled. That the females come back, groveling, after betraying the main to flirt with the other male, ends the story in a place where the man has proven to be strong, faithful, forgiving, and firmly in control, whereas the woman has been weak of character and, in the end, completely dependent. Such a trope is a product of the worst sort of 1950s style misogyny.

"Female on male violence" is simply a joke borne of the idea that women aren't actually strong enough to really hurt men (Luffy gets a bump on his head from Nami, but there are no lasting effects or rifts in their friendship as a result). It's "funny" (read: not) because of how cute it is that a female would even presume to think that she could inflict physical harm on a man and have it mean anything. Which is of course crazy, as anyone-on-anyone violence is and should be taken as a serious matter. Nobody actually wants a double standard there.

…Unless I'm reading you completely wrong, and you really just hate the trope and all the negative things that it stands for (that I pointed out). But it seems that you think that these tropes somehow reflect the mythically absurd notion that feminism has got it all backwards and that society actually favors women because why else would female cartoon characters be allowed to get away with being despicable. The demonization of female capriciousness and sexuality is literally as old as the fucking Garden of Eden. Daisy Duck is just a modern day Eve, in that sense.

[No Maam]

@CCC:

…Unless I'm reading you completely wrong, and you really just hate the trope and all the negative things that it stands for (that I pointed out).

Yep.

Not brining any discussion of feminism into this, simply pointing out it's a horribly hypocritical and dumb way to write a character, regardless of who writes it.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@CCC:

That the females come back, groveling

Also one of my main gripes is that this doesn't happen.

She just walks back as if nothing happened.

[CCC]

@No:

Yep.

Not brining any discussion of feminism into this, simply pointing out it's a horribly hypocritical and dumb way to write a character, regardless of who writes it.

Oh. Well it seems kind of inseparable from issues of societal gender politics, especially if you're bemoaning the trope and saying "Why oh why does this happen so often?" But at least we're kind of on the same page, I guess.

[No Maam]

@King:

I guess this is relevant:

http://i.imgur.com/71Ab0IGl.jpg

On a completely unrelated note, did you know that back in the 90's Topolino often paired up Fethry with an italian-only Bogart parody as bumbling detectives ?

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@CCC:

Oh. Well it seems kind of inseparable from issues of societal gender politics, especially if you're bemoaning the trope and saying "Why oh why does this happen so often?" But at least we're kind of on the same page, I guess.

It's mostly the fact that they instantly decide to cheat on their boyfriends without even breaking up with them and think that's fine and never get called out on in, as opposed to how they respond in a similar, mostly misunderstood, situation involving their male counterpart.

Not sure why being a two-faced bitch would be inseparable from what are supposed to be primary "good" characters in stories aimed at children.

[CCC]

@No:

It's mostly the fact that they instantly decide to cheat on their boyfriends without even breaking up with them and think that's fine and never get called out on in, as opposed to how they respond in a similar, mostly misunderstood, situation involving their male counterpart.

Not sure why being a two-faced bitch would be inseparable from what are supposed to be primary "good" characters in stories aimed at children.

…By "inseparable," I mean that these are not sentient female beings making decisions. They're fictional characters whose actions are controlled by authors, whose views are influenced by the world around them. And it's the same authors who decide to not have other characters "call them out" on it. That's all.
You dislike this trope. Everyone should. Lame fictional double standards that exaggeratedly portray half the population as consistently disloyal and cruel are terrible. So I just feel it's important to understand why it happens, because that really does matter.

[Insider2000]

The only issue with this argument is that Donald is already the greatest pimp of all time. He gets endless pussy on the side. He just loves Daisy cause she reminds him of himself, who is the #1 person he'd like to fuck in this world.

But to be fair, there's kind of an opposing mentality with this debate.

When Donald eyes another woman, it's made as a joke.
When Daisy eyes another man, it's made as a major conflict.

It kind of sets an image of 'boys will be boys' when they eye women, but god forbid women attempt to go for someone else. Donald will spend the entire episode trying to get Daisy back. However, I've never seen a cartoon of Donald where he falls for a woman and the entire episode, Daisy is trying to get him back in the same vain that Donald tries to get Daisy back in similar episodes. Usually, whenever characters like Donald and Daisy exist and the male falls for another woman, the Daisy character's general reaction is to strut off as if she never liked Donald to begin with or spend all day crying (or both).

I'm not denying the issue you point out either, though. Fiction (and reality) does have moments where a woman can get away with having forty men on her cause she's just having fun, yet a man with forty women on him is a scumbag or pervert. Look at Mickey, Minnie, and Mortimer. When it comes to other women, Mickey is pretty innocent. There has hardly been a situation where Mickey has eyed anyone other than Minnie. Yet Minnie still tries to give Mickey a hard time and go for Mortimer (who is a complete and total asshole).

At least with Donald vs Daisy, I can understand. Their relationship has never been that stable since Daisy is a bit of a free spirit and Donald a lovable yet curmudgeon duck. So it's not a surprise to see Donald or Daisy eyeing other people. But Mickey and Minnie? They've been douches to each other before, but never to the point of dating other people.

[Robby]

@wolfwoof:

I always thought it seemed arbitrary that Pluto is a pet, while Goofy is treated as a human

I mean both are dogs aren't they?

Goofy is an Anthropomorphic being, while Pluto is just a cartoon dog.

[wolfwood]

@No:

On a completely unrelated note, did you know that back in the 90's Topolino often paired up Fethry with an italian-only Bogart parody as bumbling detectives ?

Italian disney comics are the best.

In retrospect it's so sad that i had to throw away my donald duck collection

[Robby]

@Insider2000:

At least with Donald vs Daisy, I can understand. Their relationship has never been that stable since Daisy is a bit of a free spirit and Donald a lovable yet curmudgeon duck. So it's not a surprise to see Donald or Daisy eyeing other people. But Mickey and Minnie? They've been douches to each other before, but never to the point of dating other people.

Well, while it wasn't always the case, Mickey has pretty much evolved into THE Nice Guy, integrated as a mascot, so at this point he only works as a squeaky clean mascot straightman sort. (He used to be rough and tumble and more prone towards action and a bit of jerkiness, but that's been lost for decades now.) Donald on the other hand has always been the angry hostile confrontational one.

As a result, if there's a relationship problem, the characters (and their girls) act differently. Micky will assume its a shortcoming on his part and try to overcome his own failing, while Donald will assume its a shortcoming on Daisy's, or the intruder. (Nevermind how Pete works into things.)

And somehow Goofy is the one that's never really had an ongoing relationship and yet ends up with a kid. (Interestingly, Max got the spotlight in Goof Troop, but has actually been around as "Goofy Jr." since the 50's. There was a nameless, faceless mother in those shorts though…)

@wolfwoof:

Italian disney comics are the best.

In retrospect it's so sad that i had to throw away my donald duck collection

It has come to be my understanding that this is pretty much the case.

Barks and Rosa aside, anyway.

[Pochipochi]

who hear got there first, boner watching that

[Insider2000]

Who doesn't get a boner from Goofy?

@RobbyBevard:

And somehow Goofy is the one that's never really had an ongoing relationship and yet ends up with a kid. (Interestingly, Max got the spotlight in Goof Troop, but has actually been around since the 50's.)

Goofy gets so much god damn vag though. Clarabelle, Sylvia, Pete's wife.

[Rogues' Gallery]

@Holy:

who hear got there first, boner watching that

Naw all the youngins' pop their first man-boner watching Jessica Rabbit.

[No Maam]

@wolfwoof:

Italian disney comics are the best.

In retrospect it's so sad that i had to throw away my donald duck collection

I had this stash of trades (which come out in Germany under the name "Lustiges Taschenbuch" for those who unfamiliar) from the 90's.

Then my dad sold it all while I was out one day. I only have three trades left.

And these are impossible to find locally. Sure it's possible to try and find a used german version, but that'd be pretty expensive.

Still, the company that used to publish these here and stopped actually started up again two years abck and I got several of these new issues. It's fun because it helps me reconnect with my childhood, plus it's entertaining of it's own right. Also nitpicking these for their occasional moonlogic is also quite hilarious.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@RobbyBevard:

It has come to be my understanding that this is pretty much the case.

Barks and Rosa aside, anyway.

Well at least the trades I have, each story can go up to thirty, forty pages so naturally there's lots more content then a story from the US where Donald and his neighbour lob pumpkins at each other.

[Cyan D. Funk]

Out of Goofy, Mickey, and Donald, Goofy is the only one I can see dying surrounded by a huge family and being completely satisfied with his life.

[Insider2000]

That's the general reason I love Goofy so god damn much.

[wolfwood]

@RobbyBevard:

It has come to be my understanding that this is pretty much the case.

Barks and Rosa aside, anyway.

Rosa is the king. But man those Italians push out so much varied and awesome material

Their history tales with Zapotec and Marlin are some of my favorites

@Rogues':

Naw all the youngins' pop their first man-boner watching Jessica Rabbit.

Five little words to counter this. Channel 6, Banana colored jumpsuit

[Katzztar]

This is soooo of topic… but at least it still deals with western cartoons :ninja:@No:

I do wonder about both mixed "race" relationships in the DT/DD universe, and also why it's the dog/pig people who have to wear pants but not the ducks.
Fricken nonconformists.

well maybe true for Disney but not in Looney Tunes, Porky says hi ….and worse than Donald -who at least wears a shirt- Porky wears a jacket, gloves and tie. I guess he's the classy type of flasher
Heck when he does wear pants he tries to be classy [hide] [/hide] Even his girl is a flasher! …but at least she's got undies on. [hide] [/hide]

@Holy:

who hear got there first, boner watching that

Oh my this is actually the first time I've seen that cartoon! Pity If I had a copy when I was a teen I would so play that while my mom was in the Room! …okay I would have done so in my early 20s too! It just soo fits her when she's got the 'nic fit' and yes she was a huge chain smoker. I rarely saw her without a cig, most of times she'd light one up from the former cig that was at the butt.

[CosmicDebris]

Heh, that No Smoking cartoon was pretty forward-thinking of Disney considering the time it was released.

The ongoing joke/rumor has always been that Clairabelle is Max's mom.

[Insider2000]

I don't think they've ever 100% stated who Max's mother is. Many rumors that she died when he was young, but no real mention of her.

Although, I ship the fuck out of Clarabelle and Goof cause of the Three Musketeer movie.

And that movie didn't have too much going for it. And Clarabelle needs to be in more shit.

[Maromi]

As CCC said, its most likely because for the greater part of animation history, anyone who contributes anything to the cartoon has probably been a guy.

[MasterKingJC]

@RobbyBevard:

Goofy is an Anthropomorphic being, while Pluto is just a cartoon dog.

I feel like this needs to be posted.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@CCC:

…You do realize that the vast majority of the authors of stories that have such a ridiculous trope are men, right? This isn't the world of women flaunting its "power" (lol) and double standards and hypocrisy. It's male authors playing out childish scenarios where they see women as fickle objects to be won/controlled. That the females come back, groveling, after betraying the main to flirt with the other male, ends the story in a place where the man has proven to be strong, faithful, forgiving, and firmly in control, whereas the woman has been weak of character and, in the end, completely dependent. Such a trope is a product of the worst sort of 1950s style misogyny.

"Female on male violence" is simply a joke borne of the idea that women aren't actually strong enough to really hurt men (Luffy gets a bump on his head from Nami, but there are no lasting effects or rifts in their friendship as a result). It's "funny" (read: not) because of how cute it is that a female would even presume to think that she could inflict physical harm on a man and have it mean anything. Which is of course crazy, as anyone-on-anyone violence is and should be taken as a serious matter. Nobody actually wants a double standard there.

…Unless I'm reading you completely wrong, and you really just hate the trope and all the negative things that it stands for (that I pointed out). But it seems that you think that these tropes somehow reflect the mythically absurd notion that feminism has got it all backwards and that society actually favors women because why else would female cartoon characters be allowed to get away with being despicable. The demonization of female capriciousness and sexuality is literally as old as the fucking Garden of Eden. Daisy Duck is just a modern day Eve, in that sense.

^ Exactly what I was going to say only worded slightly better.

@No:

Yep.

Not brining any discussion of feminism into this, simply pointing out it's a horribly hypocritical and dumb way to write a character, regardless of who writes it.

Also one of my main gripes is that this doesn't happen.

She just walks back as if nothing happened.

You can't bring up a misogynistic trope and then not want to talk about feminism.

Your beef with this trope seems to be that girls actually do this, not that characters are portrayed as doing this. Women are portrayed like this over and over again, as fickle and unloyal creatures who always give their men a hard time. These representations reinforce this image to men who actually don't have all that much experience with women (if they had, they would know it's exaggerated bullshit), giving them an excuse to talk bad about women in general. Because hey, all women are like that! …in television. Male-written television.

I too want this kind of tropes to stop, but you have to realise that they are more harmful to women than to men.
Compare it with you watching an anti-islam propaganda film and then make a thread going "wow I can't believe Muslims get away with brainwashing children and threatening to murder all Christians".

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

@MasterKingJC:

I feel like this needs to be posted.

right on, this question kept haunting me after I watched this movie

[valiantt]

Shrugs
Makes sense. Hence no female characters in the Looney Tunes cast for about…several decades? (excluding Granny and Mabel)

Whereas Disney's female cast is....um...mostly archetypal for the most part and mostly kept in the background without much dialogue...

(Weird random tangent observation: I just realized something weird, aside from Pluto and a few other animals, hardly any of the anthromorphic Disney characters rarely act the role of their designated animal. Mickey Mouse isn't seen obsessed with cheese, Donald KINDA just sounds like a "talking Duck", and Goofy doesn't do anything dog related ever, and I always forget that Pete is a cat...whereas the Looney Tunes characters (except Porky) act their designated animal role but also uphold anthromorphic qualities. Weird...never made that observation before.)

[KageKageKing]

Still talking about anthropomorph and animals here:

[Kitsune Inferno]

It gets hard to argue this subject when the reverse question is applied. Why isn't men-on-women slapstick acceptable? It's touchy and complicated because eliminating women-on-men slapstick just about eliminates slapstick and makes it taboo. Which is dumb. And promoting men-on-women slapstick de-taboos something at the expense of probably offending a ton of people. Which is also dumb.

I don't know if there's any way to make this right, but as someone who doesn't really give a fuck about gender roles and likes slapstick, I lean towards just making both types acceptable at the risk of people potentially blowing my stance out of proportion.

[pyromonki]

I remember my first boner all right.

[MetaMario]

I have to agree with the rest of you (in saying that the whole female-"comedically"-hitting males trope is overused and usually not funny). It's just that writing the reversed situation is….tricky.

Not impossible, but tricky.

(p.s: No Maam, when I first saw the title thread, I thought it'd be a jab on the style of a female character being a male character with a bow and longer eyelashes, lol)

[No Maam]

@MetaMario:

I have to agree with the rest of you (in saying that the whole female-"comedically"-hitting males trope is overused and usually not funny). It's just that writing the reversed situation is….tricky.

Not impossible, but tricky.

(p.s: No Maam, when I first saw the title thread, I thought it'd be a jab on the style of a female character being a male character with a bow and longer eyelashes, lol)

Well that's sort of a problem. Then you end up with someone like Lola (see Space Jam design) and people's obsession with demonising the fact they actually have genitalia and not just the eyelashes and bows.

[Katzztar]

@MetaMario:

(p.s: No Maam, when I first saw the title thread, I thought it'd be a jab on the style of a female character being a male character with a bow and longer eyelashes, lol)

@No:

Well that's sort of a problem. Then you end up with someone like Lola (see Space Jam design) and people's obsession with demonising the fact they actually have genitalia and not just the eyelashes and bows.

… esp giving definite breasts to the females...

I had to reread the part of Lola of Space Jam. for some reason I remember her personality being more like Bugs than Honey Bunny, who I rememeber for being a softer version. Lola seemed the bold and outgoing, often outrageous. I don't remember a lot of Honey Bunny but she seemed to be more gentle than Lola. I always found it odd some call Lola the 'modern Honey". TO me, they are different. So I went to the Loony Tunes Wiki...and damn it, Honey IS Lola ... after a butt load of changes!

Some may not be interested in me going so far off-topic, so here's the hide tags, just skip this if you're not wanting to see how they changed a dozen of times a character that started out not looking the same as Bugs, to look same as Bugs but a different personality, to similar but different color fur (wow big difference! -not) and similar personality. Only to return to an earlier version.
[hide]
Honey Bunny went through a lot of changes. She started out in 1953 as a white bunny that was Bugs cousin. I believe she only had one appearance then.

She started to reappear in 1966 in cartoon and comics … and there are 3 versions! She was no longer his cousin. First as a yellow bunny then again as a grey bunny.
Yes ... same grey as Bugs. but at least her face expressions are different from Bugs

[hide] [/hide]

And then there comes the 1980s .. and she reeeeaaalllllly looks like Bugs. Grey fur, no hair and the bow is back.

… does Bugs got a harem?! fembunny is Honey, femcat (NOT a skunk) is Penelope, fempig is Petunia, ...I can't remember the fem-Tasmanian tiger

Huh didn't realize there as a character sheet for the 1990s, here Honey is looking more ...well they finally giving her a 'feminine figure' for a cartoon ...starting to see the lola there some... but at other times (like he sweater image, she really looks like Bugs visually, expressions and stance really call to Bugs

Then came Space Jam and they changed her name and altered her looks again. They had to it seems, there is a drawing that was questioned … "is that Bugs in drag?" XD
IT also begin the change of her name, .. Thank Chuck they didn't go with "Daisy Lou"! Space Jam's re-design supposed to have changed her back to the yellow fur design (why do I remember a pink fur verison?? The movie also began the agruments and controversy.

ahh this pic is why I think of 'pink fur'

To quote the wikia= "Other fans wondered about some details of Lola's appearance as she has got quite huge breasts and, so to say, a sexy bottom. Some fans came to the conclusion that Warner Bros. introduced into the world of Looney Tunes a character whose role was to look like… a symbol of sex." LOL according to the site Lola merchandise was only popular with the Space Jam stuff.

By 1999, Lola wasn't popular and the grey Honey returned
Then in the 2000s brings the question .. is it a grey Lola or a blond-haired Honey

[/hide] [/hide]

Of course we are familiar with other characters where "the style of a female character being a male character with a bow and longer eyelashes" also have similar names, the female character starts with same letter as male character
Such as Mickey & Minnie Mouse and Donald & Daisy Duck. At least over at Looney Tunes they Bugs and Honey (or Lola) Bunny have differening names (not including the animal-themed last name) ..
…oh wait... Dang it Porky and & Petunia pig! you two just ruined that claim!

At least Mrs. Elmer Fudd (yes that is only name she has, actually looks different from her male counterpart [hide][/hide] BUT she has same speech impediment as her husband … and did I mention the problem with her name?