Does Happy’s patronizing comment in panel 4 reflect Rivera’s own general opinion of the male of the species? Of course, it is completely unfair of me to make that observation, since writers/cartoonists are under no obligation to make characters adhere to their own social, political, or religious viewpoints. And rightly so! In fact, I’ve often advised people to not try to learn about the private lives of their musical, artistic, or thespian favorites. Just enjoy their work and create your own private view of the artist. But Happy’s comments are still embarrassing. 

Can we say that Happy’s statement was made in order to cast a negative view on the readers of this comic strip, by assuming they (we) are a bunch of old, chauvinistic, out-of-touch males? 

Or do we just accept it at face value that Happy Trail, himself, is some obsolete relic of the 1950s?

However, I think this whole ending sequence, suggesting that their article’s success was based primarily on a little girl’s prodding, is unfortunate. This is not a swipe against granddaughters (even though I only have grandsons). It’s just that it comes off as some kind of deus ex machina. It trivializes what was supposed to have actually happened (or what would have happened) if the story had been given any degree of gravitas.