Let’s hear it for bathos! Woohoo!

Is it me, or does Girl’s hair look particularlly pointy today?

When you pose, you’re a poser *g*

She’s a foodie!

I suppose that, in a meritocracy, you are what you do. And meritocracies are good, right? They are a product of being judged by our acts. But if all we do is slouch in our chairs commenting on (awesome) webcomics, all we can say we are is “entertained”.

But lunch sounds good, too.

I’m a smoker!

..

Or am I?

Well spoken, Matt, although I think in a meritocracy it’s a balance between what you do and how well you do it, heavy on the ‘how.’ It is not enough that you comment, the meritocracy gives you props for commenting well.

I think it’s interesting that in psychological and medical terms we attempt to divorce the person from the trait or condition, because of this marginalizing effect. A person isn’t ‘a schizophrenic,’ they ‘have schizophrenia;’ yet we haven’t even begun to discuss, let alone break up, these sort of grammatical assumptions in daily use… well, except in Cat & Girl world, of course :)

We’re each being judged for what we are individually doing, but being linguistically “grouped” at the same time? Maybe there’s just no efficient way to convey that Girl thinks in a way that is individual to Girl.

I’m a pooper, and a reader, and a typer.
Simultaneously!

I Smoke, therefore I am?

On a serious note: I find it interesting that Jonathan would call her a foodie for thinking of lunch, when the premise of this strip is that we are labeled by our actions. Interesting because I was about to say something similar. Without it being said in the strip, The correlation between what we think and what we do was somehow conveyed… or at least it was for me.

I particularly liked this one. :)

I suppose, no matter what merits and deeds you are defined by, everyone gets hungry and thus is an eater. Perhaps consumer is the word I’m looking for?

Meritocracies are not necessarily good; nor are they necessarily effective. After all, meritocracies rest on the underlying system of measurement and can only be as good as the metrics, measures and so on. Because most of these are crude at best, and often include significant random variables, they tend to result in significant inefficiency. Further, the cost of measurement and the distortions of ‘studying to the test’ are problematic. Thus we end up with things like the Peter Principle (people get promoted until they no longer do a good enough job to get them promoted). In addition, this presents ever increasing disadvantages for the handicapped, the aged, etc; as well as a general insecurity which may in fact be worse for people – mentally, physically – than the resignation that comes with being born into a more steady and relatively unchanging social role.

Americans tend to imagine that all mobility is upward.

i thought cat was just comparing her to the statue. i didnt get girls reaction at first.

In which girl takes issues where issues are not to be had.

@Anonymous, you must be new here. Oh, and you’re wrong, too. See above comments for a worthwhile discussion by people who are smarter than I.

I think Ben hit it on the money (why can’t I wake up early enough to argue these things?).

If anything, we’re living in a society that perpetuates the idea that our existences are only validated by our titles. “What do you do?” is a standard post-greeting query, used to establish the pecking order right off the bat. You’re a blogger? Okay, not as important as an engineer, but at least you’re not nameless (this, by the way, is an example of general opinion, not my personal opinion). If you live with your mother and don’t have a job, you basically only “exist” if you choose the “slacker” title.

As a species, we as humans seek order out of chaos. One of the ways we’ve always done this is by defining and classifying. It just seems like now, with billions of people to keep track of, our classifications are based on what each person has accomplished and/or contributed.

(I’m not sure if I made any sense. I’m feeling particularly metaphysical today, and also, I don’t think I know what I’m talking about.)

Much less is it adviseable for a Person to go thither [to America], who has no other Quality to recommend him but his Birth. In Europe it has indeed its Value; but it is a Commodity that cannot be carried to a worse Market than that of America, where people do not inquire concerning a Stranger, What is he? but, What can he do?

-Benjamin Franklin

Per http://catandgirl.com/?p=398 and http://catandgirl.com/?p=24 , I see very little indication of an American meritocracy. A true meritocracy would have to function in a near-constant state of intellectual revolution, which would devolve into political gaming; I don’t think one could last very long. I respect Franklin’s attempt and all…

Girl must be a Vegetarian, because, you know, she’s… vegetating.

Bollocks… I’ve finally caught up on every Cat and Girl… what to do now… :(

@Ben F

Get started on Garfield.

I don’t usually give much credence to the navel-gazing semiotics of C&G, but Girl’s point was salient this time around.

The problem, of course, is the implication that the titles – blogger, commenter, *er – define exclusivity, which they don’t. They don’t even define primacy.

There was an old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin was shocked to find his schoolteacher at the supermarket one summer.

“What did you think?”
“I dunno… I kinda figured teachers slept in coffins all summer.”

Nalano’s comment reminded me of the time i ran into my gym coach from high school. it blew my mind that he still existed after i graduated

Get out of the internet, Yeats.

Birth and activities defining what we are goes back a lot further than the New World; just look at peoples’ surnames and their meanings.

Well said smwBell – the idea that we are what we do, in the eyes of the rest of society, goes back a long way. So, the answer to girl’s question in panel 5 is ‘at the very beginning!’

teachers don’t like seeing students outside of school, either. then they can pass judgement on the jeans we wore because the nice ones were in the wash, on the misbehaviour of our children, and on the amount of KFC we’re consuming.

“What you do” vs. “accidents of birth” is a false duality. The two are largely correlated. The Horatio Alger myth of the self-made man built up from a blank slate is… well… a myth. For MOST people, your birth circumstances largely define your educational, professional, and even recreational opportunities for the rest of your life.

I always figured we defined people by their jobs because it was a more practical means of categorizing people than by race.

Thinking about lunch?

So… you’re a Twitter?

@Jacob adam: you know, your post is like a conversation i had with a dude about 4wheelers and dirtbikes.

Nny… are you implying that those who ride 4 wheelers must have had two daddies? ;)

Since “when” did what you do become who you are? ORLY?

Have you ever met a man named Mr. Smith? Maybe a Mr. Cobbler, Mr. Brown, Mr. Wright, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Chapman, or even Mr. Barker? Maybe a Frenchman named M. Fournier or M. Boulanger?

What we did used to be the ONLY thing that mattered about us, and, to make matters worse, we weren’t allowed to change that description once selected. We’ve stepped away from that as a society only to come back to it in a new, different way. At least now you are free to determine what you do, and put it on and take it off like a change of clothes.

hahahahaha two dads lol

‘When did what you do become who you are?’ is what Girl asks, not ‘…become what you ARE CALLED?’ Many posters are answering the latter question, and that’s an historical fact, and we appreciate those posters’ comments.

But, again, Girl asks ‘When did what you do become who you are?’ I do note that the rise of the Recent Unpleasantness of the debasement of our civil public dialog has been accompanied by people taking comments about behavior as name-calling and labeling of ones innermost being. If I say that your statement is ‘uninformed’, I am NOT saying that YOU are uninformed, simply that what passed your lips at that moment was uninformed. I can address your behavior/utterances without passing judgment about your ‘core of existence’.

We are all luminous creatures, shining in our value and spirit. Our words and actions are the thinnest, outermost shell of our complete life. We shouldn’t take our words and actions so seriously to heart.

Have you ever changed your mind about something? If so, and you think that your beliefs/statements are what defines you, then what just happened? How could you ever stand to change your mind, if ‘your mind’ was all that defines you? Did you suddenly become a different person? Were you incredibly stupid before, and after completely enlightened? No, there’s a ‘you’ in there sorting through different possible sets of mental contents–experimenting with opinions and utterances. You just tried another set on! At least, that SHOULD be what you do in order to grow throughout your life.

Don’t take your mental contents at any one time to be the definition of who you are. You’ll never grow that way, and you’ll be terribly sensitive to labels other people pin on your behavior….

But of course, “drinker” is only synonyms with alcoholism.

And the moral of the story is… thinking about lunch is lame, because it is a lame word. Supper is so much better!

I could live as a card carrying luncher.