I don’t know anything about that Yahoo Group, but if they were as friendly with Dave Sim as Chester Brown seems to have been, then it is just as much of a shame if he cuts himself off from them as well. However, I would think that anyone subscribing to a Dave Sim group for all the right reasons wouldn’t have a problem with signing a petition saying they don’t believe he’s a misogynist, and as a result wouldn’t lose contact with him.

I don’t think Dave Sim is a sexist either. It’s a lot easier to slap one of those “-ist” labels on someone instead of truly trying to understand what that person is saying and work to disprove or challenge them on their views. Labeling them makes them easier to ignore and taints everything they say so that those things can be easily dismissed as the ravings of an elitist. I will say that Dave Sim is very close to being a sexist, but there’s a line he’s not crossing which keeps him from fitting into one of those easy-to-use labels. **I haven’t read everything he’s ever said on the subject, so maybe I’m not as informed as I should be… but is anyone else arguing here able to say that they HAVE read EVERYTHING he’s ever said on the subject?**

Coleman G said, “you could believe that black people are intellectually inferior…you are, by the common definition, a racist.”

Maybe by common usage, but not by the actual definition. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Matthew Bernier said, “Someone who supports Dave please explain to me why his actual beliefs aren’t way, way worse than simple hatred. ”

Because hatred is emotionally motivated and often times the product of ignorance, and Dave Sims views are extensively thought-out and logical which gives them validity. His views are worse for those who disagree with him because they’re harder to dismiss as just plain hatred or sexist.

Elektra said, “he is, by definition in any dictionary, a sexist.
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”

I still think he is just slightly outside of this definition, but not by much.

Then Jim chimed in, “Any guesses on how many of Sims’ supporters posting here are just sockpuppets for Sim himself? I’m looking at you, “Unpopular.” ”

Swing and a miss, sir. I don’t have any connection to or any fondness for Dave Sim in particular. This is one reason why I haven’t extensively read everything he has said on the subject. I have been commenting on quotes posted on this blog; outside of that I’ve at least read the “Fifteen Things” and couldn’t find much to argue with, but I mostly just found it funny. I haven’t signed any petition in regard to Dave Sim because I have no desire to communicate with him…. and I haven’t read a single issue of Cerebus… and I’m an athiest. None of this has stopped me from saying what I felt needed to be said which boils down to he doesn’t fit into the labels people keep trying to give him and his views aren’t unreasonable. Fortunately, the opposing viewpoint isn’t unreasonable either. However, throwing out labels and trying to dismiss everything he says as mental problems or being out of touch with reality isn’t an opposing viewpoint. Gail and Heidi have pretty much stuck to talking about his views without tossing out the labels. They clearly wish to understand where he’s coming from even if it would only be to try to change his mind with a convincing argument. That is why I would personally rather see Heidi or Gail do a one-on-one in person interview with him to ensure that everything said stays on point and doesn’t get muddled by the peanut gallery. Unfortunately, that’s not very likely at this point, and it probably has more to do with those of us in the peanut gallery causing problems rather than Gail or Heidi doing any “hounding”.

Has anybody ever seen them together? We should ask Gerhard.

05/20/08 at 10:10 am
What really pisses me off about Dave Sim is that he’s not happy enough being a grandmaster of the comics medium, he needs to re-invent western religion as well as “expose” the truth of feminism and whatever else.

It’s about knowing when to quit when you are ahead. He painted himself into this corner. He should just issue a mea culpa and get over himself. I have all the faith in the world that Dave Sim has some of the most amazing works of comics art left in him. He needs to just stop poisioning his own punch bowl. ”

You mean that he should keep his minority viewpoints about God to himself? He holds unorthodox views on God - but are they really that much more bizarre than any other religion’s views, other than the fact that it’s a minority view?

e
L nny

05/21/08 at 5:22 pm
Any woman who says men are inferior and means it is too stupid to listen to. ”

Perhaps, but would you spend hours attacking her? Or would you be better served enjoying and praising her book?

e
L nny

Maybe you’ll lose the bet–this is only two!

Also, my second question was sincerely asked. “Genius” cannot, of course, serve as a useful replacement for the word “sexist”. I assume you were not entirely serious?

If you’re genuinely interested in rational discussion, the two questions still stand.

And again: This is not about feminism. I am not a feminist. This is about intellectual honesty. Are you ignoring someone’s irrational behaviour because you like their philosophy?

You’re welcome, and thanks for a good exchange.

Elektra,
I suppose I’m trying to figure out what, if any, rights Sim thinks women should have. I get that in a perfect world he doesn’t think they ought to have the vote, that he’s said outright. And yet, he has also made statements that suggest his basic respect for women who succeed in making it in “man’s world” on that world’s terms. So, in this imperfect world, does he think women do have some fundamental rights that wouldn’t be necessary in the perfect world?

I dunno. I’m sure Dave contradicts himself on a lot of stuff. And if anyone could ever justifiably use the Whitman line about “containing multitudes,” it’s Dave.

Maybe that’s why I don’t think the essays represent the whole Dave Sim, much though he may claim otherwise.

So fucking what?

Good day, all.

Jeff, I appreciate that you are making an effort here, but for the love of god, neither Heidi nor I want Dave shunned. I keep saying it but it keeps getting paved over. Dave’s work is immensely important to me, and I wish him well and I want him to be happy. I admit I said a lot of glib stuff, but again, this is a situation where a satirist is fine with any conduct towards others, but takes extreme umbrage when that same conduct, in this case mockery, is applied to him or herself. The myth that I ever wanted Dave shunned, let alone Heidi, who is a lot nicer and more patient than I am, is simply not supported at all. Have I mixed, “Dave is a brilliant creator” with “Dave is acting like a lunatic” in my comments in the past, just as many are still doing on the Yahoo boards and elsewhere?

Yes, I have, and I regret making that implication. I believe I have made it very clear where I believe Dave’s logic went off the cliff, but again, I thought I was dealing with Dave from the Cerebus letters pages, whom I really DID see as a towering intellect. Now, my desire to scrutinize this stuff is much overwhelmed by my desire to remember the positive stuff about Dave and not add to whatever personal misery is causing him to feel so betrayed by the universe. I would NEVER want Dave shunned–as Heidi said, I think it’d be pretty fricking great if he came out into the light again and could see the people like you and Margaret and James and Chester and so many others for the very good friends you all HAVE been and would continue to be, to your credit. It would benefit the industry and his readership, I have no doubt.

At this point, I’m saving my mockery for other targets, is all.

Andrew, thank you for the kind words. I wasn’t sure if you were referring to me or not, but I thought it was worth making my position clearer. I suspect I will continue to be labeled things I am not and accused of beliefs I’ve never held for some time to come. It’s simply easier to do that than to look at the content of my actual posts.

Like I said, it’d be nice to turn the rhetoric down, but for some, rhetoric’s all they’ve got and when the insults stop flying, they are left wandering around aimlessly for want of purpose.

I think it’s better not to be one of those people.

Best,

Gail

This is not a knock at Dave. Maybe this is what makes him happy. But from the outside and my non-expert opinion, I feel bad about it all the way around.

I don’t think Alan’s a troll any more than I think that I am ‘important,’ but I know you meant that in a nice way. I am not approaching this as a writer or pundit. It is strictly as a reader and fan, and like a lot of folks on the Yahoo group, probably yourself included, I’m taking no damn joy at all at seeing these developments any more. Dave’s suffering does not make me happy, and the suffering of his supporters makes me even less so. I thought the oath was funny, I won’t deny it. Now I don’t find it funny at all.

I don’t know what ‘others’ you’re referring to, but if Heidi doesn’t belong in the ‘constant hounding’ group, and she absolutely doesn’t, I can’t see how ’simplicity’s sake’ is any kind of justification at all. I’m not asking you to list this group of blogs that’s constantly hounding him (I personally haven’t seen any…the Dave mockery is widespread but seems about an inch deep to me. Most blogs devote no more than a thread or two to it that I have seen), but certainly including people who DON’T belong in that group does no one any favors.

I think Dave’s beliefs are pretty obvious from his blog, and no one has to project anything onto them. To me, his statements are odious, but I concede that he probably doesn’t have a lot of influence, in part, because people are willing to look at what he says and realize its bunk.

200 years ago, he might have been a contender.