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.

Only in the sense that Sim is referring to society as a whole in the first quote, and to an individual in the second, is it different. He says that society has turned “in an extreme misandrist direction” (note: that’s not just a regular misandrist direction, but an extreme one) and shortly thereafter refers to “Heidi and misandrists like her”.

As far as Sim’s argument is concerned, they *are* the same thing, because he is using “Heidi and misandrists like her” as examples of the “extreme misandrist direction” in which society has turned.

However, unlike infantile trolls like Alan Coil who can’t get quote attributes correct, or definitions (his ultimate comeback is - “uh-huh, nyah”) - you and Heidi are actually, you know, important. But there are plenty of other blogs and such out there that do the same and worse. Forgive me - I’m not interested in listing them all out for you.

Jim Sheridan - no, as Rick said, calling Dave Sim a sexist is not a problem solver, it’s a deal breaker. I, too, consider Dave a sexist. I consider all philosophies or political ideologies that put the interests of one gender over another sexist. But me correcting Chester’s definition of misogynist as being actually the definition of sexist (and its correct application to Dave) is what started the rift between us - even though I don’t think it makes anyone a “bad person” in and of itself.

Gene, close enough:) I do think there is a difference between a marginal “celebrity” like Dave Sim saying distasteful or inappropriate things and someone like Falwell or Bush or whoever - people who actually have a tangible effect on a massive amount of people. It might seem unfair, but it’s just a simple reality. I think there’s an improper balance between what Dave’s opinions are and the amount of time spent shouting down everything he does as a result. Maybe that’s why he keeps bringing up the Larry Summers thing. (He offered a theory, off the record, based on his university’s own data - and was unfairly demonized.)

As far as Dave Sim’s “emotionalism” goes - he’s extremely emotional. That’s why he tries to keep it in check. Remember how the Vulcans in Star Trek were actually a savage, destructive, emotionally wild race before the discipline of logic?

Peter - great story about Dave’s “faux drinking.” Thanks!

And in one of the most (unintentionally) hilarious examples of Irony ever, you create and attack a strawman of me allegedly saying “feminists wouldn’t understand” when not only have I never said that, I’ve never thought that.

If I thought feminists could never eventually “get it”, I wouldn’t be posting.

And do you “understand” that having to get in yet another Messenger character shot (i.e. this level of “follower”) is just part of the (failed) ideology? This is what I’ve seen for years, feminists put words in Dave’s mouth and then attack his character. I suppose the “win at any cost” method has its advantages (obviously), but it’s intellectually dishonest.

I don’t think I’ve said Dave should get a free pass. I was largely attempting to answer Matthew’s question as to whether Dave’s philosophy is worse than honest, open hatred, as seen in his example of hatred for a former enemy people.

I conceded that one could see it as such, since any philosophy can, in theory, be misapplied. In practice, though, I don’t think Sim’s philosophy has that sort of persuasive power, as against the Bible-derived simplicities of Falwell. That does make a difference to me, as it apparently did to the guys who didn’t prosecute Ezra Pound.

Based on your quotes, I don’t find it UNLIKELY that he holds conservative opinions on whether the wife has any say in the birthing matter. I just wanted to get an actual statement by him to that effect. I still think the quotes you present don’t quite do that, but I admit that you’re not simply subscribing to the “barefoot and pregnant” stereotype, and you’ve actually read his blogstuff with some thoroughness.

It is sad to me that Dave, an original and engaging thinker no matter what you think of his ideas, and a great creator whose work actually DOES engage his ideas, is now reduced to listening to the Salacious Crumb stylings of this level of “follower.”

Dave is popular, is STILL popular, because of all the good he’s done, in his work and in his advocacy, and not because of his Looney Toon beliefs about imaginary sky-friends and evil vaginas.

“Dave has many times responded in like manner to illustrate absurdity with absurdity”

I don’t know… to me it looks like he is not going for absurdity there, but is genuinely calling Heidi a misandrist. I think it’s a little disingenuous to say that he’s using the word to point out that it is silly to call him a misogynist.

Here is my evidence: in that same Sim quote, two paragraphs higher, he says, “I have never commented unfavourably about women, my opposition is directed toward feminism and the way it has turned our society in an extreme misandrist direction.”

Dismissing Sim’s claim never to have commented unfavourably about women– a claim which could be refuted by looking at some of the statements quoted by Elektra, a couple of posts up– there again is that word misandrist. We can argue over whether society has turned in an extreme misandrist direction, but it is pretty clear, from the fact that he is stating it in no uncertain terms, that Sim believes society has done so.

I don’t think he’s switching from using the term misandrist, applied to society as a whole, without irony, to calling Heidi a misandrist, ironically, two paragraphs later. So I respectfully reject the interpretation that he is using the word to ‘illustrate absurdity with absurdity.’

But my advice to you, young padewan, is to focus on taking the switch to whacky feminist ideology and Law, rather than to feminists themselves. Sure, it’s not as much fun, but you’d soon be as popular as Dave.