|
|
The Topic of MisogynyWell, I thought I'd put this text up with the week's comics, but it of course brought a fair amount of responses, and so I felt it needed it's own page, and created it. First is the statement I posted, and then the emails I've recieved. I've also responded to each one. At this point I am no longer posting contributions, I simply cannot keep up with it (though am looking into creating a message board).My Original Posting:I'm not one usually to "explain" my work, but this 4-day series (well, as I write this, only one has been posted so far) seems like an appropriate time to, since I think it has much to do with my feeling on the medium of comics and my intentions of Bruno.For years I have been a fan of Dave Sim's "Cerebus", and have learned a lot from his drawing technique. His writing has some brilliant moments as well. But recently I was exposed to his other side, what some of you no doubt know as the infamous issue#186. At the bottom of this text I'll give you a few links if you're so interested, but it's a muddled matter. Issue #186 is basically a long misogynistic diatribe. Now it's argued that it is from a character's perepective and not Sim's, but as well it's been argued that it's well known he treats women like that, and has written other things which support the fact that he meant it. I've heard he's retracted meaning any of it, but who knows. He may just have done that because sales dropped to 1/3 their original amount after that issue. I'll likely still buy the Cerebus phone books, simply because of their beauty as a work. I also love Modigliani, Picasso and numerous other well reknown assholes. I think brilliance comes from the most unexpected places (in fact, this brings up heavy theological issues in my mind, but that's too much of a tangent for right now) But it does become more of a conflict for me with Dave Sim, becuase since he is still living, he will gain from my purchases, and that disturbs me. I have no answers, but a lot of frustration. Anyhow, so after reading the text of his comic#186 online it linked me to a misogyny page. And I've been burning with anger since. I simply forget what's out there sometimes. I forget the hatred and blaming and violence which is everywhere. In this week I do not try to battle the IDEAS of misogyny, I have no words of debate for it, I simply condemn it. Misogyny, even by dictionary definition, is hatred. I have no argument against hatred, I don't view it as arguable. It is nothing more but fear, the continued teachings of ignorance, and unwillingness to take responsibility. I will not hide which side of the line in the sand I stand on. And I will continue to try to express what it means, in my own heart, to be humane. -Christopher
As well, of important note. I considered trying to find the "type" of bar you'd find this "type" of person. But i did not want to slander any bar, so I chose the Laurelthirst because not only is it a place where this kind of attitude would NOT be tolerated, but as well they serve burritos and I was hungry. Email's I've Recieved:i'm glad for your "I will not hide which side of the line in the sand I stand on. And I will continue to try to express what it means, in my own heart, to be humane.". -Naomi Thanks.-Christopher Sad to say, there are people like Dave Sims "out there", even on the 'net. Like I think you said, while the 'net does give people much wider access to good thoughts, it also gives much wider access to thoughts we find poisonous to our souls. It's like Guttenberg's printing press that way, only electronic and juiced on java (coffee, not the software) in its ability to spread information quickly. But happy to say, these people tend to self-breed themselves out of the general population. Isn't that a happy thought for the day? 8#) -Scott It's so true. And I think the web is a welcomed venue for all that it is. I hope that most of the "misogyny page" visitors are people who frown upon it.-Christopher Continue to speak loud and clear about what you feel and believe in. -Steph I'll try. I think it's worth it.-Christopher I had never heard of Cerebus, by the way. Now that I have, um, *shrug* I don't believe I'll start reading it now. I often have the same reaction you do to the insanity that goes on in the world. It seems like people should have a broader view of the world, and realize that people are too similar to one another and life is too short for that kind of bullshit. But if there were no dissention, where would the interest be in that? That's why I really did appreciate being able to link to the various pages and at least inform myself about insanity going on in the world. :) -Jen Mmm. Cerebus is a worthy read, again I want to give the message that half the conflict for me is just how damn good the comic is aside from this. But yeah, if I had read of this before I starting reading it, I would likely stay away too. As far as diversity of opinion on the web, as said above, it's a medium that will allow that, and I agree, it is good to know what is out there. I wish things like misogyny didn't exist, but they do, and so I think it's good to have access to it. Hell, almost all of the guy-in-the-bar dialogue was ripped off almost word for word fro those sites. I'd have a hard time portraying that and giving my side of it if I wasn't able to learn about it. -Christopher Interesting new thread. I will say that, as another fan of Cerebus, I was pretty put off by Dave's vehemence on the topic as well. And it's clear from his completely blanket statements that he's not very balanced on the topic. On the other hand, having actually read most of it in context, and many of his other comments in the letters pages, there is a certain segment of the population (which I don't believe is actually gender-aligned) that absolutely fits his descriptions. And the societally sanctioned standard view of women "obviously" not being interested in technology etc and all the images of women pushed everywhere in western "culture" fits his descriptions VERY WELL. While I'm in agreement with many others that his insistence that the traits he describes are in some way inherently female is wrong, I think his observations that the values and "void"ness he describes are very widespread in our society are fairly accurate. Neither Dave nor Bruno has much time for the type of flighty dip that actually does fit Dave's descriptions, and there are far too many of them. The place they seperate is in their assumptions about where the prevalence of such people originates, and whether any given person is likely to be prejudged to be in that population. BTW have you ever considered an interactive online forum, similar to what you can find at www.userfriendly.org? It's kind of a slashdot-like response forum so people can publically post responses to comics. Not sure if you'd really be interested in that, but it seems interesting in the way it works for the ufies. -P. Well, the topic for me isn't his philosophy on human nature (and you have many good points in that aspect, but I do not want to tangent here). In fact, possibly in his life men and women have taken the roles he describes, but he places his ideas on the rest of the world. And he takes all the aspects he views as negative, dumps them on WOMEN, and expressed his hatred for them for being that way. Who knows how much he meant it, but there it is. And I have been puttering at trying to set up an online forum, but don't have the tech skill so have pretty much failed. So this is my substitution. A bit luddite, but passable.-Christopher When you posted the links Cerebus #186, I very naturally followed it. I found the essay to be as inflammatory and hateful as advertised, but I was struck by one detail: It was published five years ago. People like to joke about how events of six months ago are pre-history in terms of the internet, but there really is an element of truth to that. The internet is a very immediate creature, one with a bad memory and a raging case of attention deficit disorder. And because I was only dimly aware of the existence of Cerebus, my only exposure to this essay came as a result of its re- posting on the internet. In my mind, it therefore became a creature of the internet itself. So seeing that it was five years old threw me. I'm not trying to claim that you "shouldn't" respond to it; five years have hardly cooled the hatred of the message, and if I'm reading what you've written on your site correctly, it is new to you. But I am saying that your response has a certain element of swimming against the current of your chosen medium. And I guess I also question the necessity of a response to something like this. It's clearly a case of preaching to the choir; people who already agree with the sentiment will clap and cheer, those who already disagree will fight off the nausea, and those who don't care will ask "If this is a comic book, where the hell are the pictures?" It's not even that well constructed; for all Sim's lauding of reason, there is conspicuously little to be found in the essay. And for all his railing against destructive emotion, the entire piece seems built to evoke knee-jerk hatred and hostility. It's a parody of itself. And an ugly reflection of its author. Reading it, I found it difficult to get rid of the image of a frightened, desperately lonely man sobbing "WHY can't I get LAID?" to anybody within earshot. I suppose that's what disturbs me as much as anything about the piece; it has a certain resonance, not in the truths it claims to advance, but in the frustration and anger underlying it. Everyone has been lonely. For some, it feels like a semi- permanent state, due to some combination of real personal deficiencies and social clumsiness. The danger highlighted by the essay comes from turning that loneliness into a focal point of one's being, and then nurturing it into a hot rage used to denounce fully half the human race. Blaming other people for one's own problems with the opposite sex is easy. It's comforting. It brings everyting into the safe realm of "Not My Fault." Looking within oneself for the answers is a painful process, one that can unfortunately lend itself to destructive self-loathing/pity. Perhaps the essay achieves a perverse kind of value by showing just how ugly it gets when the soul-searching is abandoned in favor of an enthusiastic and heartfelt "Girls SUCK!" But anyway, I'm rambling, and if I've got a point to make I'm sure I've made it by now. I just wanted to express that I'm not certain a response to Cerebus #186 is either timely or appropriate, but if I knew so much I suppose I'd have my own damn strip. :-) -Pete Well, it is not timely whatsoever. But as you suggested, i just came into knowledge of it. I'm not trying to swim against any stream here though. In fact, in my liberal detached out-of-touch mind I am always surprised when i see things like this. Part of the reason why Bruno gets so irate, is a simple forgetting that this kind of attitude even exists. I mean, I often portray the "guy thinking with dick and ego rather than head" mentality which i see every day, but the outright hatred is more a rarity. So if anyone was the pioneer here, I'd have to give the credit to Sim, I just don't like which side of the fence he's on. So when i saw it, I wanted to say, hey, I think this is bad. I admit, i am human: I have at times felt bad things towards women, due to upbringing, society, or getting dumped or whatever. But I realized it was just emotion or bad learning, and so I learned from it and moved beyond it; and more importantly, I didn't print a seemingly autophilosophical message of hatred towards thousands of readers who I knew it would hurt. -Christopher I'm a long time Cerebus reader with a mind of my own (i.e. not a blind believer in Sim). I do understand your dilemma in wanting to read the rest of the work while not wanting to support a misogynist. While you try to find your own answers, a couple of things are worth noting: - Sim has donated over $100K to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, thereby doing more than his share to ensure that you can say what you like in Bruno - and that he can say what he likes in Cerebus. (Kristen Brennan's opinion that this is a "misuse of venue" is laughable to me - it's _his venue_) - There are enough things in the Cerebus storyline that contradict the apparent misogyny of #186 that it cries out to be taken with a grain of salt - I won't go into detail, because so many others have already done so. For a few years now, I've been carrying around a salt shaker while reading Cerebus... :) -Russell I agree that comics should not be censored. And I agree that it is his venue, and he should do what he wants with it. But I also agree in sentiment with Kristen, I think it's a bad place to express hatred towards women, or any group for that matter. Here's an example: I've felt dislike towards the publishing industry, both in regards to practices they have which i find unethical and as well because i feel alone and like theres no place in it for me. Now if i wrote a huge essay in place of a strip, saying how I hate every person who works in publishing, how I think they are all blood-sucking assholes, and yadda yadda. I think it would be out of line. Sure I'd have the right, and I also hope at least 1/3 or my audience would leave me unless i put up a damn good satisfactory explanation. And sure, probably there would be people in the publishing industry would fit my description, but my statements would be nothig ore than a targeted blanket of hatred. And yes, i know there are many things in Cerebus which go against issue#186, but many that support it too. Enough I feel to question. -Christopher I'm a little puzzled about what to make of Jaka's Story then. Everybody lost, nobody was looking to hurt anyone (except the state, which is run by females, but that state might just as well be asexual) Everyone had their faults, everyone had their strengths. Jaka's Story didn't seem to be anything more than sad. -Mike Not sure. But that seems the thing, this issue seemed more sparked from his life and feelings than from the strip. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse. -Christopher While you're speaking out against misogyny, don't forget the flip side. You know, the one presented often on daytime talk shows, where men are more often than not portrayed as something lower than evil slime. I've always found expression against misogyny, no matter how eloquent, somewhat lacking due to the near always absence of any mention of how some women consider men in similar terms. Since you're talking about comics in this case, also consider "Dyke To Watch Out For," where practically every man who appears in the strip is an insufferable homophobic misogynist polluters who grow genetically modified corn in their backyards while wearing child sweatshop woven shirts, _except_ the gay men, who are normal and friendly ecologists with noticable I.Q.s. If you're going to go on a rant against one extreme, why not the other? I bet you don't even know the word for it. I've only found one other person who knew it without having to look it up in several dictionaries, and she looked it up after attending a "woman's empowerment seminar" which, in her exact words, "was exactly like a Klu Klux Klan rally my braindead cousin dragged me to, but with the word 'man' instead of 'nigger' being the only difference." -Paul First of all, it's true, I do NOT know the word for it. In fact, I've been wondering what it is. "Misanthropy" is the hatred of "mankind" which isn't the same thing, well, it can be. I don't know. So, if anyone knows, please share. Secondly, I totally disagree with what you said about Bechdel's work "Dykes to Watch out For". Her characters and situations express anger towards hatred and violence and things that they (and I'm sure she) have been exposed to by being both female and a lesbian. But I never once felt that she was expressing personal hatred of men. Women have been oppressed by men pretty much since the beginning of time and still are, I think there is much room for anger. It is possible that women have been what's been making the world more democratic and communal and everything which Sim hates, and men like Sim are upset with it; but I have never seen an incident in our society where a man was oppressed (except on an individual relationship level) by women as a group. And I've always felt women's anger was part of their expression to have a voice, not to extinquish the voice of men (except for the voices which extinguish the voice of women). Hell, I'll go even further. I don't condone it, but I am not surprised by any oppressed group that even goes as far as hating the oppressors. I think it's wrong, and counter-productive, and think it breeds unfair stereotypes (such as feelings against men who try to encourage gender equality); but I don't blame them. Nor do I blame all men. -Christopher . Onto the topic: this is a quote from 'Paul' "woman's empowerment seminar" which, in her exact words, "was exactly like a Klu Klux Klan rally my braindead cousin dragged me to, but with the word 'man' instead of 'nigger' being the only difference." This describes alot of the 'radical' feminists I've come across pretty darn well. Extremeism in any direction is less of a good thing than balance and mediation, BUT: What I, and I think Paul as well (though he got a little worked up saying it) find objectionable is that in today's cultural climate in the West, it is 'not politically correct' [1] to suggest that it is *possible* to be extreme when one is campaigning on behalf of what you see as womankind. That is, it is not politically correct to suggest that you can have fanatics if they are on The Right Side (tm) as defined by the 2nd Women's Movement. That *really* hacks me off. *ALL* viewpoints can be held to extremes. Now, the second point: this is a quote from you: but I have never seen an incident in our society where a man was oppressed (except on an individual relationship level) by women as a group. If you were to permit for a moment, substituting 'in favour of' in place of the 'by' in this sentence would not alter the meaning of the sentence by very far at all, but it would make room for some significant information. What I am about to mention is *not* the only such case, but it's the one I am most clearly aware of. I am not in posession of any of the names. In 1994 a WASP-type man in the UK took his company to court on a discrimination claim. He claimed that he had been rejected from an internal job he had applied for in favour of another candidate who was neither as qualified nor as experienced but who *was* female. He claimed that this was done because his firm was attracting adverse publicity after a failed candidate for another senior position told newspapers that they were not sufficiently politically correct in their recruitment practices (ie none of their senior managers were female). This man lost his case, and his appeal in the UK, because under UK precendence he fell into the class which is by definition the oppressor. All the discrimination laws and guidelines were designed to protect females, ethnic and religious minorities from discrimination by people like him. He did win his case; under *European* human rights law at the European court, eventually, becuase it was demonstrated quite clearly that the candidate accepted was significantly less qualified than he was. But in England, it was considered that he could not be discriminated against because, effectively, he was not female. Can we say 'Postitive Discrimination' [2] ? This is not an instance of a man being oppressed 'by women as a group'... but it *is* an example of him being discriminated against *on*behalf*of* women as a group. Anyway, enough of me prating on. Enjoy writing Bruno, we all enjoy reading it *8-) thanks, ~cHris [1] ... this is a term which I fundamentally object to anyway. Political correctness as a concept strikes me as both being destructive to society and a horrible waste of a perfectly good language. [2] Another term which really annoys me, kind of like 'Military Intelligence' and 'Microsoft Works' .... Oxy-morons of the world unite! I'm glad someone brought up affirmative action. And I may be dropping myself in a pot of boiling oil by delving into it, but oh well. I'm in favor of it. I believe there is still a tremendous amount of discrimination (and have seen it) both against gender and race, in the workplace and everywhere. And people and companies have used "political correctness", if anywhere, to cover their asses more than to turn the tide of discrimination. That said I think in the case you cited, I would side with the English courts. A white male society has dominated for a zillion years and still does, and I think change has to be forced into place, otherwise there is no desire (by those in power) to change the status quo. I know many people disagree, but it is my feelings on the subject. If i was competing for a position against a woman or a minority, and they were slightly less qualified, I would hope they would be the ones hired. I'm white male and educated, I can get a job anywhere I want. I don't view it as "reverse discrimination". -Christopher I like your current series a great deal, so in case you get hate mail here's an opinion from a guy who can't even spell my..st, i offer this uneducated perspectives. i'm a guy heavily involved in free software and the geeky community therein. however it frustrates me that more women aren't involved. this is true for three reasons - two are selfish, one is altruistic. first there's the issue of dating: i'd love to date a geek! second there's the issue of perspective: i think free software benefits from a variety of perspectives and women, since they tend to be raised differently, will probably have a host of new perspectives to add. a serious unix geek woman could have a lot to add (they have to date, i'd just like to see more). both of those are selfish and greedy in their way. the last one is that i like to see people be able to express themselves creatively and i see a lot of geeks able to do just that. now to your comic. i'm impressed already by your first comic since it covers a number of issues. first the guy with the mouth - very accurate since i've noticed "his type" seem overly eager to vocalize. i also like the fact that you included a guy disagreeing. there are men who are very much against woman-bashing, but we tend to get ignored by the media. i've seen a number of women's groups point out the fact that sane men exist but they get ignored by the media too. i guess "we get along" doesn't really make for good "film at 11" fodder. lastly there's bruno standing up for herself. you've created a very realistic and believable character. she doesn't stand for all women - she doesn't agree with all the female characters she's encountered. she stands for herself and not knowing what comes next i do know she'll make an excellent fight of it. as for your comments on cerebus and the issues of supporting someone who creates things of beauty and things that are ugly... it's hard. to wax deep and philosophical about it one could argue that it's an excellent mirror of the human race - we're capable of both beauty and ugly and at times we can do both at once. perhaps that's what makes the dave sims of the world so uncomfortable for us. my last point regards a comment i saw on usenet several years ago. i can't remember it word for word, but it boils down to "when you argue with an idiot, it's sometimes difficult for third parties to differentiate." i hope bruno (well i guess chris but she seems so *real*, it's eerie) keeps that in mind! :) -kevin Well, overall, just "thanks" for the positive words. Nothing much to add/respond to. Ummm.... I, as well, was very pleased with adding the guy who disagreed. It felt strange adding it, but i think that was the fact that you don't often see it (like you suggested). And i think bruno fares pretty well with not "arguing with an idiot" as you suggested. though she does lose control of her temper a bit.-Christopher the opposite of misogynist is misandrist. both words come from greek, miso=hatred gyne=female, andros=male. -Matt -Allison -Alex -Jim -Glenn -Brenda Thanks to all of you for the info. And I'll also note that i have a pretty darn good dictionary, and it is not in it (nor is it in either of my thesauruses). Pretty sad.-Christopher I, too, would choose burritos over sexism -- I applaud you. -Alex lol. Thanks you. -Christopher Christopher, As for speaking out against misandry when one speaks out against misogyny, I've been known to laugh along with women when they say things about men, but I also _have_ called them on it publically when it has gone (IMHO) too far, when the tone has gone from "ha ha, I'm going to make a joke on a stereotype to blow off some frustration" to "all men do this and they suck." Sometimes (in spoken conversation at least) a gentle nudge is all it takes. Sometimes it's an uncomfortable confrontation. Sometimes a joke about whether or not such complaints apply to me (as a transgendered person) is enough to make someone realize what she's been saying. Even the mostly "innocent" jokes, if they become an unrelenting theme, need to be pointed out and objected to. And of course, misandric statements occur in non-joking formats as well, sometimes because the speaker really believes all or most men really are that horrible, and other times because the speaker is unable (or in too much of a hurry) to separate "men" from "the established pro-male culture" (which, despite _major_ advances over the past 40-80 years, is still biased in favour of men). But that's _not_ saying, "Oh, the feminists are always picking on men, boo hoo hoo, look, we're the last group it's okay to make fun of." It _happens_, but it's not whats behind every doggone joke about men not asking for directions. And some of the anti-men jokes are really anti-(antifeminist status quo) jokes which point out things we need to be reminded of because they've not been fixed yet and our "cultural lenses" (concept borrowed from Bem) make them easy to overlook unless we're reminded often. Funny thing though: it really doesn't seem to come up all that often, at least in my social circles. And I count a _lot_ of lesbians among my friends and associate with very few people who don't fit my definition of "feminist". Exactly the crowd where you'd expect it to be more of a problem. As for "Dykes To Watch Out For", Bechdel quite often shows her characters saying something stupid or bigoted and _points_it_out_ to the reader, either by making the situation contrast the words or by having another character argue back! I love her strip, and part of it is that she doesn't portray a "party line": she portrays _various_ attiudes and positions which occur in real life and has them argue with each other. If anyone has trouble with "Dykes", I guess "Hothead Paisan" (by Diane DiMassa) is gonna give them conniptions. (I like that one too, though she's often unfair: I read it as blowing off steam over all the slights and attacks and unfairnesses that build up over time and a few big ones that are just plain immediately angry-making. I consider that instead of being a manifesto, it's more an intentional exaggeration with the intent of saying, "Open your eyes to this stuff!" And if I ever meet DiMassa, I hope I'm right.) - Glenn Thank you Glenn. I agree, I think, with everything you wrote. Like I wrote above, "I don't condone it, but I am not surprised by any oppressed group that even goes as far as hating the oppressors. I think it's wrong, and counter-productive, and think it breeds unfair stereotypes (such as feelings against men who try to encourage gender equality); but I don't blame them. Nor do I blame all men". As well, I wanted to more clearly articulate about "Dykes To Watch Out for" but my collections are back in Massachusetts. And thanks for bringing up "Paisan" as well. -Christopher The word for hatred of men as a gender is "misandry." A practitioner is a misandrist. And it's real outside of relationships. My husband (who is 40) was told as a child that his opinion was worthless because of his gender by a woman in an authority position over him (not his mother, thankfully). -Brenda First of all, I think that is horrible to say to any child, regardless of gender/ race etc. And I agree, you're right. I don't think misandry is seen often, and since we do live in a white/male dominated society, I think it's important to point out that she didn't really use the power of a group. But yes, that sounds definately like a case of misandry. Thanks for pointing it out. -Christopher . I was a longtime Cerebus reader who quit after reading #186. Not out of protest, or even out of offended sensibilities (though I did find it offensive), but because I was put off by the sheer exploitative self-indulgence of it. I don't care (much) if Dave Sim is a misogynist jerk. I don't care if he expresses his misogynist views in public; sunlight is the best disinfectant, if you ask me. But I read Cerebus for the story, and for the art. I continue to read comics like Cerebus in the expectation that there will be more story, and more art, in the next issue. As I recall, #186 didn't have a significant amount of either story or art. Instead, I got a wholly unexpected and unwelcome view into the depths of the mind of the artist -- way More Information Than I Needed To Know. The funny thing is, I didn't previously mind him working out his problems, philosophy or whatever in the pages of Cerebus; it's his forum, after all, and if I disagreed with him, it was still interesting. Maybe it's the blatant assumption that his readers were primarily interested in Dave Sim's head, so he could cut out the middleman. Maybe it's the realization that he could blow up again at any time -- I could open the new issue and get a big bolus of crap instead of a comic book. Maybe it's the same yearning for consistency that drives the stereotypical fanboy to nit-pick every continuity defect in "mainstream" superhero comics; if so, I hang my head in helpless embarassment. Because I can't help it. It's not a matter of any kind of conscious virtue; I'm not trying to motivate Dave or anybody to Do the Right Thing Or Else. I just don't feel like reading Cerebus any more. Make of that what you will. -Bruce Thanks Bruce for adding another angle to the discussion. Not sure what, if at all, to respond. I suppose it brings up the idea of whether or not I'm exploting my position to expose "my head". I guess i do, from time to time make note of issues, such as this. But I guess i make sure the are synonymous to the strip. More just bringing up issues that I am already addressing in the strip in one form or another. As far as this large discussion, possibly I am saying too much in response to the emails, but it seems that i am the "mediator" and "commentator" for it. It just sort of happened. I guess, if anyone thinks I'm out of line in hosting this discussion, feel free to voice that.-Christopher The problem is not Sim. The problem is that view that he reflects. Though he reflects it with talent; still it is a view to common and too damaging. Most of those that hold and act on it do not do so with his cloak of talent. At the heart of this view is fear. It is a clichŽ that men do not understand women. It is a truism that many men fear and hate what they do not understand. Downstream from Sim are the 911 domestic violence calls and the legions of women trapped in relationships with men that try to burn out their souls. To me, Sim and his ilk support this just as much as the sleazy defense lawyers and other apologists for the emotionally and physically violent behavior of these jerks. If we are to consider a cartoonist as an artist, we must also consider if that person's work fulfills some basic criteria of art. One of those is commonly stated as "art reflects a truth" or "art is a lie that leads one to truth". Though technically proficient, Sim's work leads nowhere. I should state that I'm a man that believes my gender's failure to speak out against this hatred is a far more severe lack than the most radical feminist ever thought of.I should also state I don't consider these jerks to be men. Thanks Christopher, for raising the topic. -John Well, first of all, thanks. Ummm... I agree in sentiment, though I have to disagree that Sim's work leads nowhere, which is a large conflict in me. It is one of the first and best North-American comic to break away from the mainstream, and actually deal with character and conversation and depth. In fact, it had a large female following due to (among other things I'm sure) its strong female characters. I even found, when reading it, that i hated Cerebus because he was an asshole, but his character was so well developed, that it wasn't a "men are assholes" portrayal, it was the one single character that was one. For the same reason I continued reading "Lolita" after Humbert had sex with a young girl, or "Crime and Punishment" after Raskalnikov murdered an elderly woman out of intellectual exploration; the character was believable and developed enough that it usurped its action's motivations, so that it wasn't a stereotype, it wasn't a dogmatic diatribe, it was one character in one created world and nothing else. That said, the problem comes in that Nabakov never said "I think people should molest little girls", and Dostoyevski never said "people should kill out of intellectul curiosity". But Sim seems to be trying to come out and say "women are the lesser sex". In addition, Sim is a pioneer in black and white comics in North America, having influence on my own and I'm sure many other artrist's styles. -Christopher Thanks for starting this dialogue, Chris. One of the minor problems that I would like to point out with this topic is that, as you correctly note, loudmouthed voices of open, fullblown misogyny are comparitively rare (and I say Hurrah for "PC" for making such voices rarer!). The downside is that too many people think that if they aren't openly bigoted, then they are just fine, thank you very much--like some of my university students who have said, "I'd never join the KKK, I'm not a racist." The extremists tend to mask the more subtle forms of institutionalized inequality and privilege, making it harder, ironically, to DO something about those much more pervasive forms of discrimination. Not that you fall into that trap--you've had Bruno notice it plenty often enough. I'd like to recommend an essay that I've used often in writing classes, Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." As McIntosh points out, what she says about race applies equally to gender privilege. Reminds me of what Molly Ivins said about George Bush--"He was born on third base, but thinks he hit a triple." -Marty For those who didn't go and read the essay, the main thing it seems to focus on is that those who are in power (by race or gender) don't view it as privilege, that even those who don't want to discriminate, don't realize that they have to give some things up in order to reach equality. I think this goes back to what I said above about affirmative action that "if I was competing for a position against a woman or a minority, and they were slightly less qualified, I would hope they would be the ones hired. I'm white male and educated, I can get a job anywhere I want. I don't view it as "reverse discrimination". Or for those who prefer analogies: if one child has all the toys and the child says that they want equality, can that be attained without giving away toys? -Christopher Interesting take on Dave Sim. I used to be a fan of Cerebus up until a few years ago; I even bought a page from one of the early issues back in the '70s (Lord Julius: 'Find out what he's been smoking and have a few ounces sent up to my room'). Without getting into gender specifics, Robert Anton Wilson, my favorite writer, had the following to say regarding the blame game: WHY IS THE MORAL MAJORITY LIKE SUSAN BROWMILLER (sic)? "To me, it doesn't matter if your scapegoats are the Jews, the homosexuals, the male sex, the Masons, the Jesuits, the Welfare Parasites, the Power Elite, the female sex, the vegetarians or the Communist party. To the extent that you *need* scapegoats, you simply have not got your brain programmed to work as an efficient problem-solving machine." "Show me a movement that doesn't hate somebody, and I will join it at once." -- Robert Anton Wilson, Right Where You Are Sitting Now, And/Or Press, Inc., Berkeley, 1982, p. 124. Or as one friend of mine used to put it, "There are people who produce results in their life, and there are people who produce reasons why they don't produce results in their life." Blaming others for my own lack of results is the ultimate in laziness, irresponsibility; and entropy; such may yet bring about the extinction not only of our own species, but of all life on this planet. The ONLY way to win the blame game is not to play it. -Reece Morehead Yes, I agree that hatred against any group is bad. I do not hate misogynysts, but I am angered by them. Do I blame them and society and the whoe world's history for women's oppression, yes. But the goal here is not to blame, it is to discuss and possibly even educate (I've certainly learned a lot). I do not want Sim burned, but I want awareness so individual educated choices can be made. -Christopher I'm also very conflicted about Cerebus and Dave Sim's apparent misogyny. I've heard that he has made similar statements in other places, though I have no hard facts on that. And before going any further, I guess it would be best to state that I really despise that attitude. That kind of generalization regarding -any- group is stupid, counter-productive and generally drives me nuts, whether the division is based on gender, race, religion etc. I do think that apart from that essay (or whatever it should be called), Cerebus presents quite a different perspective, though. If anything, there are more -female- characters that are shown in a generally positive light (though, to Sim's credit, his characters are very often a lot more complex than is common in comics, or any other medium) than male ones. Taking the main character as an example, Cerebus himself (though technically a hermaphrodite) displays all of the stereotypically negative (male or generally human) traits: violent nature, egoism, fixation on sex, fear of intimacy and so on and so forth. It seems to me that since just before Cerebus' visit to Juno, Sim has been trying to do something about this. I interpret the storyline since then (and maybe a lot earlier), at least until the return of Jaka and perhaps beyond that, as Sim trying to make Cerebus "grow up", to become a decent person instead of the egotistical little bastard he's been before. I don't know if this is a view that has been presented before, since I don't have the time or energy to hang around on usenet these days. :) Anyway, thanks for a great comic, and keep up the good work! -Anders I have not read the last few books yet, so I cannot comment. But thanks for adding this dimension to the discussion. -Christopher I'm glad you've decided to run the most recent set of comics. I have met people like the fella Bruno meets in Laurelthirst. The people around them play it off, saying, "He doesn't really mean it," when generally the misogynists I've met do mean exactly what they say. I don't know what the best way of dealing with this sort of situation would be. Challenging the misogynist? Calling him a jerk and walking away? I don't know what makes people this way to begin with, much less what, if anything, can or should be done with them. I'll be interested to see how Bruno deals with the situation. -Heather Thanks for contributing. I don't know if there is a good response. I am glad to not have to face that kind of situation, but wish it didn't have to occur to others. Bruno doesn't respond particularly "rationally"; but she's been feeling scared and alone, so it's not surprising that she might lash out. -Christopher I've always used misandrist too, but it doesn't seem to show up in any of my dictionaries. Maybe we've just all come to the same conclusion using our vague knowledge of language roots. Yes, there are misandrists out there, plenty of them. And they're wrong, no question. I'm against blaming an entire gender for things done wrong. But I've also had it up to here with the "poor us, look at all those man-hating dykes!" school of rhetoric. The fact that when a friend gets in my car and realizes most of my tapes are of bands with female singers, they ask if it's a political statement; they ask if the tapes are of "man-haters", as if the most important thing about being female -- the defining aspect of femininity -- is how we relate to men. I find Sarah McLachlan and Tori Amos and Michelle Shocked -- and, yes, Alannis Morrisette -- easy to sing along to. I also have Meatloaf and Sting and Como Zoo and opera and Andrew Lloyd Webber (usually they come up front during road trips). My life is not built around relating to men. It's built around me. Maybe that's self-centered. Yeah, I think that's the definition of self-centered. But anyway... My point is, I stand up to misandrists because I don't want retribution for past oppression, I want equality, fairness, communication. You stand up to misogynists because you don't believe in gender partisanship. And I think the rush to associate feminism with "Political Correctness", that great bugaboo, or with "Man-hating" starts to tend toward misogyny again. The only way to stop it is to hold each person responsible for his or her actions and ONLY for his or her actions. If I ask you not to use an offensive term, that doesn't mean you get to slap me with all your grievances against political correctness for the last 20 years. You may, however, argue about whether or not the term should be acceptable. I'm open to that. We must also take responsibility for our actions. That means being aware of the implications each time we make a toilet seat joke, or a PMS joke, or a "women drivers", "men drivers", "white men dancing" joke. Not that you can't make them, just be aware. I used to read Cerebus (my ex was the comic book fan, so I don't much anymore), and I liked it. Cerebus is a great taciturn little guy, and I appreciated that. I laughed my ass off at Swoon and Snuff (and yes, I'm a Sandman fan). But reading the stuff from #186, I feel as though Sims doesn't regard me as a person. As though nothing I say could be of any use, because he's resigned me to non-person status. *That's* scary. Here's the thing, though. You say, "I have no argument against hatred, I don't view it as arguable. It is nothing more but fear, the continued teachings of ignorance, and unwillingness to take responsibility." True enough. But ignorance is remedied by information; if you listen, then argument can teach you. I accept that I'm probably idealistic. But if hatred is inarguable, then do we resign haters to non-persondom? Do we write them off, say, "there's nothing we can say to that"? That allows them to go on unfettered, and it allows them to say, "See? They're not even arguing." Speechless fury is the best gift a woman can give a misogynist, since his argument is usually that women are too emotional and not logical. I think we should go on arguing, if only so that the people around us can hear it. If you hear someone expressing a viewpoint that you think is unfair, tell him or her. Maybe he or she is an irrational bigot and you won't get anywhere, but the proper response is to speak up against unfairness. Even if the idiot speaking won't hear you, others will, and they'll know someone is standing up. But don't let Andrea Dworkin define feminism for you; Operation Rescue define pro-lifers; the Religious Right define religious people; misogynists define men; misandrists define women. Wow, that's way too long. Trim at will. -Emily Thank Emily. You bring up a lot of issues. I agree that racism and misogyny and misandry are all wrong, hatred of any group is illogical (as long as there are exceptions), and hatred breeds hatred. But I think it should be as well pointed out, that even though all white men are not oppressors acting to distinguish the power of minorities and women; that white men do have the most power in our country, and as long as that is true it seems that it will propogate itself and the result of it are that women and minorities have less power. As far as not arguing, i guess i should clarify. I would not debate whether or not a woman was a "void" because she liked to buy things, as Sim indicated. I feel that his statements like this one are arbitrary and thus are pointless to argue on an individual level. For instance, if someone said "short people are worthless human beings because they can't reach things on high shelves", what is there to argue? But what I do find worth arguing is that apparent hatred that fueled the statement. In the "for instance" I just made, I wouldn't say "I have met short people who could jump to reach, or could get stools", instead I'd say "what the hell is your problem with short people?". In Sim's piece, it seems he basically takes traits he doesn't like, and dumps them (logically or not) on women, and i view it as an act of hatred. And that is what I view as arguable. But yes, use your voice and you knowledge, stand up for yours and others right. I belive it is very important. -Christopher As a long-time fan of Cerebus, I feel I must say something about your take on his views on women. First off, you say "it's well known he treats women like that." I've been in Dave's company several times and I've never seen him be belligerent, hostile or rude to anyone, including people who deserved it. I know that some of his former girlfriends - and his former wife - have complained about some of his behavior, but what people do within a relationship is a separate category from public behavior - and even then I've never heard any of them describe behavior that could be said to be indicative of real hatred for women in general. So I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Certainly your bar character is nothing like the Dave Sim I know. Part of my problem with labeling Dave Sim a misogynist is exactly the dictionary definition of the word and that all-important concept of "hate." Dave doesn't hate women. Period. Intellectually, philosophically, he has contempt for women, perhaps. He believes that very few females are "lights" rather than voids - and he's right; he just doesn't understand that the same is true of males. He believes that single women are looking for a man to become attached to and leech off of and that tyranny ultimately proceeds from mothers' desire to protect their children. All of this is wrongheaded, but it is not hateful. On an personal level, he can enjoy their company and is just as likely to fall in love as any other heterosexual male. I have never seen Dave treat an individual woman with the loathing the character of Viktor Davis expresses toward them, or even the amused contempt of his current public persona (i.e., the writer of the notes in the back of the current issues). Certainly Viktor Davis is, more or less, Dave Sim. Those apologists who want to claim he's "just a character" are far off the beam. It's also true, however, that Dave had reasons for inventing Viktor Davis, and that one of them was that the semi-fictional character allowed him to express his views in an absolute, hyperbolical and exaggerated manner. It's entirely possible that Viktor could be said to be a misogynist, although I don't see any advocacy of violence against them, for instance, in #186. But by the dictionary definition of the word, the definition that justifies your saying "he's not worth debating with, I just reject his ideas out of hand," Dave Sim is NOT a misogynist, and his ideas cannot be rejected out of hand by anyone with intellectual honesty. It's only when you examine them closely and admit to the truths in what he is saying and find where his false assumptions are and how he twists the true arguments into false ones that you can really be sure of your own beliefs. Sim's arguments in #186 challenged me as nothing since reading Ayn Rand in high school, and although I ultimately disagree with him I believe I'm a better person for having entertained the possibility he was right, and insisted on finding where and how he was wrong. And as another reader pointed out, if you leave aside the insistence on "male" and "female" and the biologically determined gender imperative involved, much of what he says is actually true. Of course, Dave would argue that you can't leave it out, that that's the whole point of what he's saying. But to label his view "hatred of women" shows a complete misunderstanding of what he's saying. And to the person who read #186 and saw the lament of a man crying "why can't I get laid?" I've got to tell you, Dave has had far less trouble getting laid in his life than your average sensitive male comic book reader. He's had women who run the gamut from exotic dancer to a graduate student in feminist studies get involved in long-term relationships with him. And many men far closer to any true definition of misogynist have had women flock to them like moths to a bug zapper. Not every male who puts down women does so out of frustrated horniness. -steve First off, I never intended the bar character to be Sim. He is simply a reflection of writings by Sim and others. Secondly, I never said "it's well known he treats women like that." What I did say was: " Now it's argued that it is from a character's perepective and not Sim's, but as well it's been argued that it's well known he treats women like that, and has written other things which support the fact that he meant it. I've heard he's retracted meaning any of it, but who knows" I do not know for sure very much at all, and didn't assert that i did. And now to address the point of it. You speak with personal experience, I can value that, thank you. As well you say that "some of his former girlfriends - and his former wife - have complained about some of his behavior" "I've never heard any of them describe behavior that could be said to be indicative of real hatred for women in general." All of which I believe. And not to be antagonistic, but due to the rest of your email, I question your definition of "behavior that could be said to be indicative of real hatred for women in general." "Intellectually, philosophically, he has contempt for women, perhaps." , "he just doesn't understand that (very few females are "lights" rather than voids) the same is true of males." , "He believes that single women are looking for a man to become attached to and leech off of and that tyranny ultimately proceeds from mothers' desire to protect their children." , "Certainly Viktor Davis is, more or less, Dave Sim. Those apologists who want to claim he's 'just a character' are far off the beam." What i'm missing here as how you view these stements as not hateful. I mean you also say that: "It's entirely possible that Viktor could be said to be a misogynist, although I don't see any advocacy of violence against them, for instance, in #186." is that what it takes? Someone has to advocate violence? Saying"women were (rightly) denied the vote" or "In one of those Poor Us studies for which the Emotional Female Void is notorious, it was pointed out that after a divorce, the average male standard of living rises by (pick you own ungodly number) percent. The average female standard of living drops by (pick your own ungoddessly Poor Us number) percent. This was presented (of course) as living proof of the unfairness of the Global Economic Structure. I think the more rational explanation is that the excision of a five-to-six-foot leech from the surface of a human body is going to have more of its own blood in its own veins. Unless the leech finds another body, it is going to go hungry." Saying those things doesn't imply hatred to you? Dave Sim did not challenge me (in any way you imply). It's one thing to discuss gender differences, it's another to say that "women are voids". As far as his ability to "get laid", I am not surprised. But what i got out of that reader's point was "I suppose that's what disturbs me as much as anything about the piece; it has a certain resonance, not in the truths it claims to advance, but in the frustration and anger underlying it." Sim seems to have something against women. That reader thought it was that he couldn't "get laid", I couldn't start to guess. -Christopher Christopher: Just wanted to make another voice heard regarding your recent strips and their "misogyny" thread of this week. I've been a follower of Bruno for the past couple of years, and I think that it has its good and bad days (although, to give you your due, I'd have to say that the good has far outweighed the bad). One of the things I've noticed about the characters in your strip is that, while many of them are well-rounded people who obviously have greater depth than is shown in the panels, occasionally you will throw in a character who seems to be just a stereotype. As much as I abhor prejudice and stereotyping, most such images have a kernel of truth behind them -- your misogynist character in this week's strips being a case in point. I've heard people utter all of the statements that he makes, and only the most naive of people will deny that there are indeed people who think that way. However, I've never, ever heard a real conversation like the one Bruno had with this guy. It really isn't even a conversation, because the guy isn't talking to Bruno; he just spews one misogynist cliche after another at her. In the real world, not only is this offensive, it's also boring as hell. I think that even someone of Bruno's temperament would have simply walked away from this guy after the second or third helping of venom. So, although I have always disagreed with the misogynistic point of view myself, I can't take offense at this week's strips on that ground. The character you've shown is too much of a caricature to be taken seriously. If I find any fault with this week's strips, it's that they don't live up to your usual high level of realism when portraying people, situations, and conversations. In closing, though, I would like to say congratulations on the many fine strips you've shared with us so far. Thank you for all your efforts, and I look forward to enjoying more of Bruno in the future. -Jimcat Well, thank you first of all for the praise. Ummm... well, this brings up the idea of presenting "agenda" type ideas in one's work. My intention for the guy was simply to be a mouthpiece for a point of view, so he is definately a one dimensional character. I could go into how his father left him and he blamed his mother and his first girlfriend dumped him because of... etc etc. But I have to choose my battles. This one was about hatred, specifically misogyny, and how I view it as wrong. Other obvious topics worth exploring might be how society and community help form these ideas, or how to educate people in a way so this doesn't occur. Hopefully as i learn more maybe I can address these topics. As well, the focus of the strip is mostly Bruno and how she relates and learns and grows within her world. So I think it makes sense to have her encounter this kind of hostility (which i belive is plausable) and not necessarily go into the development of the hostile character. As far as bruno's response. Even though it is three days, it is barely a conversation more than a minute. He attacks her and she is stunned. And then he drives it home and she flips out. Which, since she has been cooped up, lonely, emotionally vulnerable (when is she not i suppose); it makes total sense to me that she'd have this reaction. -Christopher I suppose I should preface this, but I can't think of anything particularly relevant to say. All this is IMNSHO, of course. ;) I really enjoy Bruno. I desperately wish I could even come close to your artistic ability. And now, I rant. Yay! First: the reason that the word for "hatred of men" isn't as common as the word for "hatred of women" is because women aren't supposed to hate men. There isn't supposed to be a word for it. Women aren't supposed to talk about how much they hate men. It's OK for men to hate women, OK enough for a term to have a promenent place in societal lingo, but to even find a single term to describe a women who hates men, you have to dig through obscure dictionaries. Words create our reality; if there isn't a word for something, it almost literally doesn't exist, because you can't talk about it, define it, or describe it. Words have power of expression, explanation, and communication, and if you take the words away from the people who need them, you effectively take away their ability to talk about what's wrong. I used to read Cerebus rabidly. I had all of the "phone books," I reccommended it to friends, I crosschecked the storyline against itself, I read most of the letters to Dave Sim and even wrote one myself (which was published, BTW, but I can't remember in what issue). Ironically, it was around that time that I stopped reading the series altogether, based on one incident portrayed in the comic: the rape of Astoria. I knew Cerebus was supposed to be an asshole. There was plenty of plot buldup, and he'd done plenty of terrible things, and there were complicated reasons and such. One could even (as one of my roommates did) make a case that Astoria pretty much pushed Cerebus into it; she didn't seem terribly upset by it, really. But with that action, I lost all sympathy I had retained for Cerebus as a character. I simply didn't care about him anymore. I wanted him to fall on a sword and die. I never bought another issue of the comic, or another book, after that; I gave away the books I'd collected, and just dropped the series completely. To me, there is no justification for rape. Period. And I couldn't pretend sympathy to the character anymore. But I also know that that decision is my own, made on my personal ethics, and so I didn't really say much about it to anybody else, or try to convince others not to buy or read the comic. It was my choice. Several years ago, there was a fellow in my circle of friends who was generally known as "John the Racist." He held a number of, er, unpopular views, including that non-whites were genetically inferior to whites, that women existed solely to reproduce the species and to that end should not be educated at all or hold jobs, etc. Interesting how these ideas seem to go together, isn't it? Anyway, JtR was actively working to hasten the downfall of the US Government by regularly committing welfare fraud - he worked for the welfare office, mind you - and funnelling thousands of dollars (maybe more) to people that weren't supposed to be getting money. He was also involved with ID forgery, illegal weapons smuggling, and several other ventures that were designed to help him and his buddies keep their compound in the hills secure against the ravening hordes of non-whites and leftist weenies who would try to take their hard-earned women and food away from them after the US collapsed. Honestly, I have no idea why he was tolerated within the group; he was a genuine, frothing at the mouth wingnut. The one time that I met JtR, we immediately got into an argument, which ended up lasting almost three hours straight. Although neither of us convinced the other (of course), I considered myself to have "won," since I was able to bring up several points he couldn't counter, to refute almost all of his points, and to hold my beer better. ;) But he did bring up a couple of ideas that I didn't have answers for, and these nagged at me for years. I'm not the kind of person who sings in the shower; instead, I argue, and for a long time the person I argued with was JtR. About three or four years later, I heard that some of JtR's illegal activities had been coming to light, mostly from his work at the Welfare department, but also some stuff about tax evasion. Somehow, he got the news at work before the FBI agents showed up. He went home, took one of his many guns out of the closet, and shot himself. This was a tragedy for two big reasons: in spite of his initial panic, the FBI didn't actually know that much about what he'd been doing, and he probably could have pulled through with some minimal jail time, or possibly none at all; and, since he had insisted that his wife not have more than a high school education and never work, she was left to raise his three sons without the ability to fend for herself - or any insurance money, since his suicide prevented her from recieving any benefits. After hearing this, the next time I started mentally arguing with JtR, I realized that there wasn't any reason to anymore. I had won. By all of the arguments he had been using, he had lost, completely. It was simultaneously a painful and heartening realization. Whenever I'm tempted to argue with wingnuts, I think of JtR. Usually it's enough for me to state my position clearly and then back out. I know I'll never convince them, and I only hope that they will someday, somehow enlighten themselves, before it's too late. Rant off. ;) -- Erin It's an interesting point about words defining our world. I am glad that I may have just been a part of the education of most of my readership with an important word (though I hope it doesn't propagate more hatred) As far as Cerebus's raping, I think that is a fair reason to stop reading. I think there is a point for most of us when a character crosses a line and we no longer have interest in anything about them, only disgust. You're story is very moving. I have nothing really to add or respond to in it, but it is pertinant. Thank you and as well, my condolences. -Christopher Christopher - Just wanted to comment on the misogyny/Sim/Cerebus issue, and your moral quandary in deciding whether or not to keep purchasing Cerebus. Here's the thing: Do you enjoy reading the comic? Does the knowledge of Sim's arrested-adolescent assholeishness, lurking in the back of your mind, make it impossible for you to enjoy the story he's telling? If so, stop reading. ^_^ As an example, I think that Piers Anthony, the fantasy author, is probably at least mildly misogynistic. If not, then just extremely sexist. That bothers me somewhat. I don't think I'd like to know him as a person, or have him in my life. But wow, those Xanth novels are great trash lit to read on the el. They amuse me. They amuse me enough that I keep reading them, even though Anthony is a sexist old ogre. The tradeoff is enough for me. You need to decide if the tradeoff is enough for you. -Topher Well, I think there is another important factor: in a capitalist economy, to purchase also means to vote for or to support. I think I could still read Cerebus and get something out of it, but life could go on without it as well. I don't know. -Christopher Christopher, On the subject of Dave Sim / Cerebus: As someone who has every issue of Cerebus, I can safely state that Sim does indeed have strong beliefs. He also has a number soft beliefs, a few half-baked and the occassional left-in-the-oven-too-long beliefs. To focus too strongly on his misogynious rant is to overlook everything else that has been said in the comicâs commentary section and puts Sim in a highly offensive light that I don't think he really deserves. People who visit your Bruno web site but have not read Cerebus will now associate the comic with misogynist doctrine and not see it for the work of art (both visually and literary) it is. If you don't like Sim the asshole but like Cerebus the comic, then stop reading the commentary and letters section (as several people I know do) or only buy the collected books. For those who have not read Cerebus before, see if you can find a copy of "High Society" in your local comic store. It's a very good read. As for "Dykes to Watch Out For", those who took exception at my comment that heterosexual men are almost always portrayed as intolerant polluters have overlooked the fact that to make such a comment I would have to read the comic extensively. On the bookshelf across the room is the complete set of Dyke books (two autographed), sandwiched between my complete set of "Footrot Flats" and "Little Nemo in Slumberland." And as chance would have it, directly below my collection of Cerebus books. I like Dykes to Watch Out For, and as Glenn pointed out, the characters say stupid and bigoted things as part of their personalities and are often called on it by others in the strip, but the thing is that Bechdel tends to portray heterosexual men as either backdrops (one to four words spoken in the entire strip, never to be seen again) or as enemies. I can think of only one exception in all of her books. Yes, she's justified, and yes, heterosexual men make up the vast majority of lesbian's oppressors, but it gets stereotypical after a while. In fact, a few friends who happen to be lesbians can't stand reading it because they consider the strip intolerant. As for misandry not being seen often, obviously you don't watch daytime talk shows (as well you shouldn't ;-) I have experienced misandrist women just a little less often than misogynist men. They -are- out there and they -are- doing damage and they -are- trying to spread hate and intolerance, but you rarely ever hear about them. When you stated that you were going to do several strips about misogyny, my first thought was "Great! More 'Men are hateful but women aren't' rants." I have read a large number of anti-misogyny pieces (some quite excellent in their research) but can only recall three that brought up misandry, and those just rationalized it before getting back to the evil that is today's male-dominated misogynous society. What does this say? That one kind of hatred is bad, but the other is okay? That one must be exposed but the other convneniently ignored? Bruno has run into a number of obnoxious men, and now a very vocal misogynous one. Will she ever run into a misandrous woman? Will she work with a female supervisor who deliberately falsifies work reports so all men under her are fired and she has an all-woman work force? (lost my first post-college job this way) Will it be okay to shout "MEN SUCK!" in your strip but not "She's a bitch"? If you were commenting on the sad state of established institutions, then this wouldn't be a problem because you'd be illustrating an argument against a deeply ingrained wrong. But youâre speaking out against hate, and a narrowly-defined specific hate at that. To just show one man ranting against Bruno without showing a woman with equal obsesusions about men would be like doing a strip about racism only affecting blacks and no other minority. What can I say? I'm tired of misandry being ignored or rationalized then forgotten. Hate is hate, regardless of gender. Talk to you later Paul Hey Paul, thanks for writing again, I'm glad you did. As far as the delineation between Sim's views and his work, I agree. That's definately in line with much of what i've said. I do value his work, but if in it he declares his misogyny, I think that should be taken into account. As far as me ignoring misandry in Bruno, I think you are right, I've never really touched on it. But it is a comic about a woman, one who is compassionate (well, tries to be) and not very hateful. So she can encounter a man expressing hatred towards her, but she likely wouldn't befriend many (if any) misandrysts, so wouldn't have much opportunity to encounter that type of situation. Plus I think that there is no question that the strip advocates tolerance and is against hatred of any sort. And lastly, as I said above, I disagree with all hatred, but misandry still feels to me more incidental and misogyny part of our culture. Both are wrong, but I think one is more immediately important to deal with. And Bechdel again... I never felt in reading her strip that she hates men. I do feel she has no use for them, and has as well found them to be oppressive and intolerant, and so she attacks them. But I never got the feeling she hates them for "being men". Possibly that is just my interpretation. -Christopher . Nothing like stirring up a little controversy, eh? Just really skimmed the call and response÷what is it that makes Bechdel such a target? They obviously don't truly read the strip, or they'd know that she portrays as many if not more women being assholes than men. (simply cause there are more women) Sheesh! Bechdel clearly has a sincere love/hate for all of humanity. She is obviously fond of Stuart, Sparrow's boyfriend, and one of the biggest assholes is Sidney, Mo's girlfriend. The woman of the het couple living next door to Clarice and Tony is clearly as big a dick as the wife. Clarice and the hubby just happen to both be lawyers on opposite sides of the fence. That, and the fact that Bechdel considers Clarice to be the patriarch type÷the guy, the hubby, Ward Cleaver÷is just too fun not to play with. Actually, some of the biggest misandrist women writers you wouldn't recognize, as they focus all their loving attention on the men characters where the women are regulated to stereotypical, background roles. Only with talking to them do you discover than they consider men animals and/or children (as these are het women, this clearly makes them beastialitists and/or pedophiles÷but that's a story for another day) Beyond the fact is that this isn't about the stories as much as a personal manifesto. Hey, I'd much rather be a woman in Sim's universe where I'm a worthy foe÷smart, intelligent, self sufficient, resourceful÷ rather than some of the "women friendlyä male cartoonists who would have me be a sublime creature, i.e., a limp submissive poreless (and powerless) barbie doll who needs protection from the big bad world. I'm always reminded in these type debates of a Shel Silverstein cartoon entitled "Beware, my daughter, of men bearing pedestalsä in which a woman is being approached by a man carrying÷you guessed it÷a pedestal. He places it before her then bows low before her as she begins to ascend. When she trips and falls while trying to do so, he becomes enraged, picks up the pedestal and crushes her. Goddamn, we are all just human animals!! Women for not paragons of virtue, they have bad thoughts, which is healthy! but punished by society (actually most women punish themselves). Men are not inherently grunting barbarians. They are cut off by society conditioning from certain forms of expression, things that are reinforced way beyond childhood, constantly. I guess all men are potential rapists, but then I guess all women are potentially manipulative bitches. The point is to move beyond all that. We all have the blood of slavers, murders and rapists in our veins. Anyway, I have to admit, my first thought at your concept of rebutting Sim was 'Cool! Issue came out a few years ago, but cool! ä It's not like the sexism has gone away. Internet history might be short, but so has always been the attention span of people÷gotta keep getting in their face. -Jenn Thanks Jen for the contirbution. Good points. -Christopher First off, I must say that I am enjoying this exchange immensely. I follow over 2 dozen comics online, and many of them have forums, and I almost never read, much less participate in them. But this has been a really eye-opening experience. One quick answer to your comment on my e-mail. You said: -- What i'm missing here as how you view these stements as not hateful. I mean you also say that: "It's entirely possible that Viktor could be said to be a misogynist, although I don't see any advocacy of violence against them, for instance, in #186." is that what it takes? Someone has to advocate violence? -- No, not necessarily advocate violence, but certainly do something more than saying that women are inferior. Interestingly enough, you chose two quotes from #186 to back up your point, and the first one is, to me, exactly indicative of what I'm talking about. Saying that "women were (rightly) denied the vote" - especially if you finish the quote, which I don't remember exactly but the gist of it is "because they make decisions based on emotion instead of reason," is NOT the statement of someone who hates women, merely the statement of someone who considers them inferior beings. It may be stupid - in fact the amazing thing is that he doesn't seem to BE stupid when he's talking about anything other than gender relations - but it's not hateful. I believe that dogs and cats are intellectually inferior to human beings, and should not be allowed to vote. Does that mean I hate them? Of course not. The fact that I may be right and Dave Sim may be wrong is irrelevant to the relative level of _hatred_ in our two positions (of course, I'm not too sure about cats . . . ). On the other hand, his "five foot leech" and "sucking out brains" and the quote you paraphrase for your bar character are, I admit, much closer to the mark, revealing a bitterness and certainly at the very least nearing real hatred, which is why I said it may be true that Viktor Davis is a misogynist. Again, apart from the character, whose views are basically Sim's but are deliberately exaggerated, I have never heard or read Dave himself say anything like this. I've heard and read many things like the first comment. He does genuinely believe in the inferiority of women - in the inferiority of the Female Principle in some abstract sense that goes way beyond the totality of individual women added together. He's a nut. But the streaks of something approaching real hatred that appear in #186 do seem, to me anyway, to be confined to Viktor Davis. Or maybe he's just polite enough to keep them covered up most of the time. And finally, think about your own words in the last answer posted at the time I write this: -- And Bechdel again... I never felt in reading her strip that she hates men. I do feel she has no use for them, and has as well found them to be oppressive and intolerant, and so she attacks them. -- Attack. And interesting word. I suppose it's possible to attack without hating, but it is certainly at the very least a hostile act. And let's turn the statement around, and alter it a bit to fit Sim: "I never felt in reading Cerebus that Dave Sim hates women. I do feel he has little use for them beyond gratifying his sex urges, and has found them to be devious and needy to the point of oppression, and thinks that doctrinaire feminism is oppressive and intolerant and in control of most of the media and academia in our culture, so he attacks women." I don't believe I am oppressive and intolerant, but if I interpret a Bechdel attack on straight men as being aimed at me, I'm brushed off as being too sensitive (which is something of a joke - aren't women always complaining that men aren't sensitive enough?), but even though Dave goes out of his way to specifically say that it's possible for a woman to be a "light," that his general disparagement of the Female Principle is NOT meant as a blanket condemnation of all women, any individual woman who takes offense is treated much differently than a man who's insulted by Bechdel. Her inference of a personal insult is deemed to be perfectly valid, while his is not. That is the kind of thing that leads Dave to his position. (Now I must say that I've never myself felt insulted by Bechdel - I'm playing devil's advocate here by placing myself in the position of the guy who was.) Woah. This is way, way, WAY longer than I meant. So much for a "quick answer." Sorry to rattle so. Keep up the interesting work. -steve Saying woman are inferior and advocating oppression against them as a group I do feel is an act of hatred. Standing up for your rights when you are being oppressed and shut out of society I do not feel as an act of hatred. And before, when I wrote: "I do feel she has no use for them, and has as well found them to be oppressive and intolerant, and so she attacks them." I have never gotten the impression that she attacks them because they are men, but rather that she attacks oppression and intolerance. If Sim attacked people who rely on emotions rather than logic, I'd accept it as just a debate of philosophy, which would be fine. I'd disagree in many points, but would be fine with it. But to say, "women are this" and thus they are "void" they "shouldn't have the right to vote" and that "they are leeches who's only goal is to suck men dry"; I view it as a presentation of hatred. You also say: "Dave goes out of his way to specifically say that it's possible for a woman to be a 'light', but he doesn't really. He says: "The Male Light is not a genderless thing, but it occurs where it occurs and sometimes (not often) it occurs in women." So woman cannot have inherent light, they can only have male light. If they are female, then they are "void". -Christopher Hi again; thanks for putting up my first mail. Firstly a qote from your own response thereto: "I'm glad someone brought up affirmative action. And I may be dropping myself in a pot of boiling oil by delving into it, but oh well. I'm in favor of it." 'Affirmative action' is something I have and would support actively. My issue is with the definition thereof. I believe it to mean levelling a competitive playing field so that the only criterion considered are those related to fitness for employment (in the the employment sphere). IE, no discrimination on any basis other than ability/effort/experience. These are rationally supportable decision criteria; race, religion and gender are not. Unfortuantely, what AA is normally taken to mean is 'let's set a quota of people from xyz minority who we're gonna hire whether they're hte right people or not'. *THAT* I do not agree with. On to Paul's second post: " As for misandry not being seen often, obviously you don't watch daytime talk shows (as well you shouldn't ;-) I have experienced misandrist women just a little less often than misogynist men. They -are- out there and they -are- doing damage and they -are- trying to spread hate and intolerance, but you rarely ever hear about them. When you stated that you were going to do several strips about misogyny, my first thought was "Great! More 'Men are hateful but women aren't' rants." I have read a large number of anti-misogyny pieces (some quite excellent in their research) but can only recall three that brought up misandry, and those just rationalized it before getting back to the evil that is today's male-dominated misogynous society." This is right up the alley of the thrust of my original post. Misandry is now an established cultural norm, rather than (as implied in the highly eloquent post above on the nature of the power of words in our society) an absent contradiction. It's so established that they *no*longer*need* the word; it's so established that it will never be referred to by anyone. I'm in danger of going off on one here so I'll stop. What I'm personally complaining about is very simple. It's not a complaint that misandry exists: it always will. Nor is it a complaint that misandry is both largely tolerated and, in fact, largely un*noticed*: for the most part, this will also not change. What I'm ranting about is that misandry is largely considered to be *JUSTIFIED*; not, admittedly, by most of the people on here as most people in this discussion seem to be pretty sensible people, but by and large through both popular and media society misandry is treated as if it were in some way justified by the historical fact that for large parts of human civilisatoin misogyny has existed. The one does *not* justify the other, but ever since the '60s people have talked and written as if it did: to quote Paul again: "I have read a large number of anti-misogyny pieces (some quite excellent in their research) but can only recall three that brought up misandry, and those just rationalized it before getting back to the evil that is today's male-dominated misogynous society." Having done research work in precisely this area among academics, I ran across this one frequently myself. Of course, the particular people whose works I was reading were not only feminist but also post-modernist, so I was kind of letting myself in for it. Goodness it was fun *8-) ----===---- I hope this is a reasonable contribution to a highly stimulating discussion, and thanks again Chris for starting it for us *8-) *wave* -cHris Well, first about affirmative action, you wrote that there should be"no discrimination on any basis other than ability/effort/experience." So say a woman or a minority has equal innate ability, has put in equal effort, and has worked to attain the same amount of experience. Due to the societal hurdles and prejudices they have had to deal with, the end result is that a white male will almost definately end up better qualified. I agree that more action is needed from the ground up, but that in job situations and the like, that in order to provide "equal opportunity" that " ability/effort/experience" cannot be the only criteria. As far as Misandry, I don't belive it's as rampant as you indicate, and as well I stand by what i said above" "I don't condone it, but I am not surprised by any oppressed group that even goes as far as hating the oppressors. I think it's wrong, and counter-productive, and think it breeds unfair stereotypes (such as feelings against men who try to encourage gender equality); but I don't blame them. Nor do I blame all men." -Christopher (written by Bruce, who wrote earlier as well) "Not sure what, if at all, to respond. I suppose it brings up the idea of whether or not I'm exploting my position to expose 'my head'. [...] As far as this large discussion, possibly I am saying too much in response to the emails, but it seems that i am the 'mediator' and 'commentator' for it. It just sort of happened. I guess, if anyone thinks I'm out of line in hosting this discussion, feel free to voice that." Oops, I really didn't mean to imply that you were exploiting your position or something. I just figured, since I was an example of the people who dropped the series after #186, I'd try and explain why. I think this discussion is pretty interesting (otherwise I wouldn't bother, I'd just read the comic...). To make things perfectly clear, I don't find your hosting the forum and exposing your head thereby offensive or offputting. I suppose one could analyze the differences between this forum and #186, but it would really be beside the point. I have to say, like a number of others have, that Dave deserves a lot of credit as the patron saint of self-published comics. I wish him all success; I'm always glad to recommend Cerebus to anyone who likes that sort of thing. But I only have so much time and money, and I'm happy enough with my current array, which (if you'll forgive me for being self-indulgent) includes Finder, Box Office Poison, and Naughty Bits, among others. -Bruce I didn't take your comments that way, don't worry. But I thought it brough it to the light, as open for debate or criticism. But thanks for saying. I agree Sim has offered a lot, and have stated that before. -Christopher ending of this dialogueDear readers, though I wanted to keep up with posting emails i recieved on this issue, I didn't expect them to keep coming in with such force, and apologize, but do not have the time to post and respond to them all. Plus it seems it has no end in sight, as the topic is just slowly turning and could turn a million other ways. "affirmative action" has become the current topic of emails I've recieved. So future emails, will be for my eyes only. I welcome them, but don't have the time to post.I have recieved offers to adding a message board to my site, and am looking towards that as an avenue I'll likely take. My best, -Christopher |