"I don’t hate women and I’m not prejudiced against women any more than I’m prejudiced against black people. Feminism is not a viable way to run a society (see "Fifteen Impossible Things To Believe Before Breakfast") . Saying Feminism isn’t a viable way to run society doesn’t mean I hate women or that I’m prejudiced against women. It means Feminism isn’t a viable way to run society."
-- Dave Sim, 4/21/08
ABOUT LAST COLUMN
As the globe warms, the sky falls, and the grass grows, people continue to talk about Dave Sim. Everything he does or says seems to be magnified a hundredfold, and I have yet to have someone explain exactly why that is. He is only one man, with no authority and no power, save for the power of the written word. Why is it that what he writes generates so much passion, especially for a man who promotes calm, logical reasoning and thought over emotion? The devil is always in the details.
About his "I believe Dave Sim is not a Misogynist" petition he writes:
"I think it's working pretty well so far. The people who have believed that I have all of this incredible support in the comics field, close friends in the upper ranks of creativity and publishing, etc. can see that my total support amounts to 50 people. So that's good. That's reality. That's what I'm looking for.
"On the other side of the fence, it show that there are 50 people who don't believe that thinking the Impossible Things to be Impossible Things means that I hate women. That's good, too. That, as well, is reality. I mean, it seems to me that's where Gail's peculiar profanity-laced profession of theatrical hilarity is coming from: like Heidi MacDonald, even one person not absolutely shunning me constitutes a personal affront to THEM. ‘Look at how funny I find you! Look at how I'm laughing at you!’ But it doesn't read as funny, it reads like computer rage. So, that's good, too. Everyone who won't count themselves with the 50 is basically saying ‘Gail is right’ or having to confront that this is the sort of person they've chosen to enable by remaining silent, this is the voice of the Comic Book Consensus by abstention.
"The most important thing is that anyone on the Internet is able to sign the statement or not sign it. The other important thing is that people can take their names down if they change their minds as the discussion -- er, ‘discussion’ -- evolves.
"The bottom line for me was: there just aren't enough hours in the day. I looked at the pile of 60 or 70 letters that had built up over the last three months and I realized NONE of those people was willing to stand up and say they didn't think I was a misogynist. So why would I invest three or four days of work answering all of them?
"Well, it turned out I was wrong. Out of the 60 or 70 form letters I sent out, 5 or 6 people WERE willing to say that they don't believe I'm a misogynist. I was able to answer all of those letters in an hour or two and then spend all of my time writing and drawing. When I consider how many hours I would have wasted on the other 50 or 60 people. . .
". . .yes, I think this is working very well, indeed."
-- Dave Sim, in a fax to Jeff Seiler on May 9, 2008
Chester Brown vs. Dave Sim
As people read Dave’s petition, they began inventing motives and reasons and translations for why Dave wrote it and what he really meant. The question/poll "Do you believe Dave Sim is a Misogynist?" quickly became yet another vehicle for people to lash out and attempt to smear Dave with even more labels…once again deftly illustrating the quick and convenient method that Marxist-feminists use to silence any and all opposition to their ideology, and they’ve been using it (successfully) for years against Dave.
As people tried to interpret and spin Dave’s request, two of Dave’s friends, Chester Brown and Jeff Tundis, did their best to clarify exactly what Dave was asking for. In the process, and through a series of exchanged faxes, Dave decided that neither of them were working in his best interests, and soon severed ties with both. Of these fax exchanges, Dave states:
"I agree with Jeff S(eiler) which is why I wish SOMEONE would post the Sim/Brown/Tundis dialogue (fax exchanges). I assume at that point everyone except Jeff S and Billy Beach and Sandeep Atwal will take their names down (i.e. REMOVE the name they already posted) which will further emphasize my point: I have NO friends and NO supporters so please don't contact me anymore unless your name is Jeff Seiler, Billy Beach, or Sandeep Atwal. Does the capability exist for someone to remove their name when - rather than if - they change their mind? If it doesn't then we're really getting nowhere. I don't want a lot of liberals who believe I'm a misogynist but so pity me that they put their names up anyway. Nor do I want a list of liberals who along the lines of President Clinton's 'it depends on what your definition of the word IS is' are using a hair-splitting difference between 'misogynist' and 'sexist' a la Jeff Tundis in order to sign.
"You can print whatever Chester sent...I guarantee it. You can print whatever I sent to Jeff Tundis and you can print what Tundis sent if Tundis agrees to let you do so.
"It frankly makes us all look RIDICULOUS that there's this 'elite' which have read the 'misogynist vs. sexist' discussion that Jeff Tundis, Chester Brown and I already had which led to my breaking with both of them but which no one else is allowed to read. The point here is twofold: 1) I have NO interest in having the same discussion multiple times when Sim/Brown/Tundis encapsulates it nicely; 2) it is frankly dishonest to have someone like Larry Hart posting his name when I'm pretty sure that if he reads the discussion he will want to remove his name from the list.
"Again, the point is establishing REALITY starting with the Cerebus newsgroup. Once REALITY has been established there, I'm pretty sure nothing more will need to be done. 974 Yahoos...3 don't believe Dave Sim is a misogynist or a sexist or a racist or a homophobe or whatever other pejorative you want to include." -- Dave Sim, May 12, 2008
It’s obvious that Dave will not capitulate to accept any pejorative with which feminists wish to smear him. The desire to pigeon-hole Dave into some feminist trash-bin label makes no sense to me either. Dave attacks Marxist-feminist ideas, he does not attack Women. But if they can make people believe that it is Women he hates, then people will de facto disregard the nuggets of truth in Dave’s message….and that is their only goal.
So what mysterious secrets are in these faxes that Dave wants made public but have been kept hidden by a few in order to "protect Dave from himself, for his own good"?
As someone on the YAHOO group commented, "Tundis is right. For Dave’s own good, these (faxes) should not be posted."
Yet if they accurately reflect his opinions, then why feel the need to cover that up? He believes it, he stated it, and he wants it made public. I understand Tundis' position very well, too, and if Jeff doesn't want his part made public (and since it involves his words, too) then that settles that.
For Dave's Own Good.
The thing is, I can see how many of Dave's fans would never have let CEREBUS issue #186 see the light of day either, if they'd had a say. As many in the YAHOO group continue to state, Dave's a big boy. I really doubt that *anything* in that correspondence would change a thing about how the comics industry (and the public) *feel* about him, positively or negatively. Read the Sim/Brown exchanges below and see if it indeed makes Dave look bad. On the contrary I think he yet again takes the High Ground and shows for the nth time that he will always choose Logical Ideology over Relationship, and that's a Good Thing. He stands his ground for truth, almost always at a huge cost.
Dave sent me the faxes between he and Chester, and I present them now:
"Chester Brown correspondence attached, feel free to post it. It started with his phone message inviting me to join the jury for the Doug Wright Awards this year. I faxed him my reply. Seth, Brad, and Jeet e-mailed each other and Chester relayed the artful answer ‘The consensus is that we won’t do that so I guess that means you won’t be helping judge the Doug Wright Awards. Maybe you’ll change your mind and you can judge them next year.’ Via phone message. That is why I zeroed in on the ‘consensus’ (which can be a simple majority) and asked for his personal answer."
-- Dave Sim
FAX #1 (from Dave to Chester)
14 April 08
Hi Chet
I’d be glad to. Potential problem: I won’t associate with anyone who is unwilling to have his or her name published on the internet under the declaration "I don’t believe Dave Sim is a Misogynist." Since "jury duty" would require me to associate with people, I’d have to have them agree to that (I’d be willing to give a "bye" to civilians on the jury who have never heard of Dave Sim) before I’d agree to participate.
And, of course, I wouldn’t be able to attend the ceremony since I couldn’t get a disclaimer from all the attendees. But if I can get these reassurances, yes, I’d be glad to.
Dave
Voicemail from Chester
‘The consensus is that we won’t do that so I guess that means you won’t be helping judge the Doug Wright Awards. Maybe you’ll change your mind and you can judge them next year.’
FAX #2 (from Dave to Chester)
16 April 08
Hey Chet –
Can’t say I’m surprised. When I get the page up and running I will be mentioning that the Doug Wright Awards Jury, Chester Brown, Brad Mackay, Jeet Heer and Seth withdrew their invitation to judge the DWAs when I said I needed reassurance that they didn’t think I was a misogynist.
What about you personally?
Basically, I just started noticing how much of my working day and life in general were getting eaten up doing things for people who are quite content to have me being called a misogynist on a regular basis without feeling any urge to defend me. So I figured an actual list of supporters was the way to go.
If you go to see John and Siu’s opening for DADDY TRAN can you mention it to them? I’m about 99.9% certain they won’t support me either, but I always like to give folks the benefit of the doubt.
Best,
Dave
FAX #3 (from Chester to Dave)
April 18th, 2008
Hey Dave,
According to the dictionary, a misogynist is someone who hates women. But most people think the word means this: a person with a prejudice against women. Let’s call that the common-usage definition. It’s my understanding that you think women are intellectually inferior to men. (Please correct me if that’s not the case.) Most people would consider that to be a prejudiced view and therefore a misogynistic one.
It seems to me that by the dictionary definition you are not a misogynist, but by the common-usage definition you are one.
You say this is about who supports and defends you. Seth is my friend, but he disagrees with me politically. I don’t expect him to support me when I get into a political debate with someone like James Sturm. I’m your friend and I’ve supported and defended you plenty over the years. But not mindlessly on every issue. If I’m talking to someone and they say that Dave Sim is a misogynist because he believes that women are intellectually inferior to men, I’m not going to lie and say that Dave doesn't believe that women are intellectually inferior to men. I have been in conversations like that and I have said, "Well, you know, according to the dictionary, a misogynist is someone who hates women, and Dave says he doesn’t hate women, and I believe him." But in those conversations, that always seems like a ridiculous semantic argument – the person I’m talking with doesn’t care about the dictionary definition of misogyny – to them that’s beside the point – they care that you think women are intellectually inferior to men. I don't believe that women are intellectually inferior to men so I’m not going to support that point in a conversation any more than Seth would back me up in a political conversation with James Sturm or Jeet Heer (or whoever). That doesn’t mean I don’t support you – it just means I don’t agree with one of your ideas.
Bottom line: I’m not signing a petition that implies that I agree with an idea that I don’t actually agree with. But you can print this letter if you want to – in which case (if this is going to be a web-site intended to support you) I should add that I do agree with you on many matters, you’ve influenced me in many ways, I respect you as an artist, and I genuinely like you on a personal level.
Yes, I’ll pass all this on to John and Siu – though perhaps not tonight. I will be at their premiere, but I expect that it’ll be a busy night for them.
Hope you’re doing well.
Take care,
Chet
FAX #4 (from Dave to Chester)
18 APR 08
Chet –
What you seem to be saying is that because Marxist feminist bigots have an inaccurate idea of what a misogynist is and use the term ignorantly that that means there is no need to defend me because no damage has been done. By just such intellectually dishonest rationalizations (self rationalizations) does ignorance triumph over reality in my view. Anything which encourages ignorance to triumph over reality and, in fact, enables it to do so is deplorable, isn’t it?
I think there is a substantial body of evidence -- increasing every day – that indicates women are intellectually inferior to men. I also hope that you would agree that the brainless mob (with whom you have chosen to align yourself) by hounding Lawrence Summers from his office as Harvard President for even obliquely raising the possibility (and thus making any informed examination of the subject verboten through terror tactics and character assassination) are implicit enemies of intellectual honesty. Do you (at point of greatest reduction; minimal narrow minded bigotry let’s call it) at least allow of the possibility that what Lawrence Summers alluded to has a body of evidence to support it and that refusing to turn a blind eye to that body of evidence (as I have chosen to do at great personal cost) represents an open-mindedness towards "theoretical likelihood" that you have chosen to oppose for selfish reasons of your own comfort?
I’m doing as well as can be expected, thanks for asking.
Dave
FAX #5 (from Chester to Dave)
April 19th, 2008
Hey Dave,
It’s not just "Marxist feminist bigots" who use what I called "the common-usage definition" of misogyny – it’s everyone. Or so close to everyone that it might as well be everyone. Probably over 90% of the population uses the word that way – and I think that’s a low guess. You call me "intellectually dishonest" – to my way of seeing things it would be intellectually dishonest of me to refuse to acknowledge how the word is now used. Language is a dynamic system that changes over time (sometimes rapidly) and dictionaries are always playing catch-up with language-usage. You say that using the common-usage definition of misogynist "encourages ignorance to triumph over reality". But what’s reality in this situation? Are you saying that the dictionary definition of a word is "real"? Language isn’t reality – it’s an unstable symbolic communication system and for it to work you have to use it in the same way as everyone else in your culture. If you’re upset because the word "misogynist" is widely perceived as a pejorative, well, tough luck. The term "whore-monger" is also a pejorative, but I accept that my actions and beliefs make that term an accurate label for me. That's reality. Maybe I wish that reality could be different – maybe I wish I lived in a culture where my actions resulted in a nobler-sounding designation than whore-monger, but we don’t. I’m a whore-monger and you’re a misogynist and that’s that, my fellow outsider.
You think I’m not supporting you. Okay, we have two statements:
1) "Dave Sim is not a misogynist."
2) "Dave Sim does not hate women."
You consider statement 1 to be supportive. You think both statements are saying the same thing. Therefore, logically, you should see statement 2 as being equally supportive.
I readily acknowledge that you don’t hate women and am willing to say so publicly – as publicly as any of the people who’ll be putting their names on your petition. I’m saying what you want me to say, I’m just not using your words. You don't want support, you want ventriloquist puppets.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard the name Laurence Summers before, but I’m sure that there are people who could do a good job of running a university who also happen to believe that women are inferior.
APRIL 20th (same fax)
(Dave wrote, and Chester quotes)
DAVE: Do you (at point of greatest reduction; minimal narrow minded bigotry let’s call it) at least allow of the possibility that what Lawrence Summers alluded to has a body of evidence to support it and that refusing to turn a blind eye to that body of evidence (as I have chosen to do at great personal cost) represents an open-mindedness towards "theoretical likelihood" that you have chosen to oppose for selfish reasons of your own comfort?
CHESTER: Sure, it would be open-minded to look at such evidence. I’ll go further and say that I’ve always admired your intellectual fearlessness. But that doesn’t mean I have to share your conclusions or that I have "selfish reasons" for not doing so.
Yes, yes, of course the Aliza Shvarts "art project" is stupid and disgusting.
In your April 14th fax you wrote that you "won’t associate with anyone who is unwilling to have his or her name published on the internet under the declaration ‘I don’t believe Dave Sim is a misogynist.’ ’’ I had hoped that my April 18th letter would count as the equivalent of such a declaration (for the reasons outlined in paragraph two of this letter). Since you did not see it that way, it doesn’t seem likely that this letter will turn around your thinking. Still, I hope it does – I enjoy your visits to Toronto and will miss them if they stop. But no hard feelings even if you do decide you can’t associate with me.
Take care,
Chet
P.S. APRIL 21st – I re-read what I’ve written. This sentence jumped out at me : "Probably over 90% of the population uses the word that way." I thought to myself, "Does Dave know that? What if he thinks it’s more like 60 or 70%?" And then I realized, "He can’t think it’s even that much. If he thought that 60% of the people who read his Dave-Sim-is-not-a-misogynist web-page would interpret the word in its "new" sense, that would mean he’d be deliberately trying to deceive 60% of the people who’d encounter that web-page."
Unable to believe that you’d ask me and other people to sign a deliberately deceptive statement, I concluded that, "He must think it’s less than 50% -- even 40% would be kinda deceptive. He must place it at 10 to 20% or even lower. How can that be? Doesn’t he talk to other people?" And it occurred to me that you don’t talk much to other people and that when you do, people probably avoid using that word because of who you are. Let me give you an example. I’ve been seeing the same call-girl for over four years and she has never heard me say these words: "You are a prostitute." If she ever directly asks me if I think she’s a prostitute I’ll have to say "yes". But until that day there’s no reason to bring up the sensitive "P-word". Similarly, I avoided the sensitive "M-word" when I was with you. And if I avoided it, I would guess other people have been avoiding it too. Or humouring you – "yes, dave, according to the dictionary you’re not a misogynist." None of this would have been done with malicious intent -- it was just people thinking "This is something Dave is touchy about, I won’t bring it up." People wanting to get along with you conversationally – not make waves. When did CEREBUS #186 come out? 1993 or ’94? For fourteen or fifteen years you haven’t heard the word in a normal conversational way – years in which a way of using the word became further entrenched. I can remember that in 1993- ’94 I was willing to accept the dictionary definition, but now in 2008 that just seems like a ridiculous position.
Maybe I’m wrong -- maybe it was just me avoiding "the M-word" with you. I’m just trying to guess why you seem kinda clueless about its current usage.
Anyway, again, I hope you’ll reconsider all this.
Chet
FAX #6 (from Dave to Chester)
21 APRIL 08
In other words you think I’m the gender equivalent of a racist. This is what I’ve come to realize: that people genuinely believe that I’m the worst imaginable thing (literally: a non-person, a sub-human) in our society. That being the case the only honorable thing is to withdraw from society completely and limit my contact with society to necessities (my rep at Diamond, people I buy food from). Would you associate with anyone who thought you were a subhuman?
We discussed Lawrence Summers at length, many times. If you want to pretend at this late date you’ve never heard of him, the President of Harvard who was hounded from office by the Marxist Feminists…well, that only indicates how far gone you are at this point.
4/20 (section)
The question isn’t "Would that be open-minded?" The question is "Are you that open-minded"? That you remove yourself from the question, it seems to me, answers the question. Admiring my intellectual fearlessness while hanging me out to dry doesn’t do me a lot of good.
RE: Visits to Toronto…Would you associate with anyone you thought were a subhuman? That is, the gender equivalent of a racist? Sorry to have to repeat myself.
4/21 (section)
Yes, but it’s not factual in my case. I don’t hate women and I’m not prejudiced against women any more than I’m prejudiced against black people. Feminism is not a viable way to run a society (see "Fifteen Impossible Things To Believe Before Breakfast") . Saying Feminism isn’t a viable way to run society doesn’t mean I hate women or that I’m prejudiced against women. It means Feminism isn’t a viable way to run society.
Hooray for PAGE 45
What is missing from the above exchange is a series of faxes between Jeff Tundis and Dave that Jeff has refused to make public, which, of course, is his right. He, like a few others, say that they are doing it (are you ready...here we go...rinse and repeat ad infinitum) for Dave's Own Good. For the record, Jeff wanted to sign the petition, but after his exchange with Dave, he says that he was asked not to. I hope to find out more about this later.
Many others, however, are like Chester Brown, in that they just find some excuse not to sign Sim's petition.
But not everyone had a problem stating that Sim isn’t a misogynist, as illustrated in the fax below. (The list of names is available at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/davesim/ where any and all are welcome to sign in support of Dave.)
I’ll close this week’s edition of The Great Sim Defense with the following fax from Stephen Holland (of PAGE 45) to Dave:
1st May 2008
Dear Dave,
Quite right, too!
I received your form letter today and am so sorry it has come to this for you, but yes, everyone should stand up and be counted. I thought I’d already made my position perfectly clear in public: over and over again in person (I never back down), on-line, in Comics International, and in the twice-monthly Page 45 Mailshots, but since you now desire unequivocal declarations in writing (and I don’t fucking blame you):
I don’t believe that Dave Sim is a misogynist.
In fact I know that Dave Sim is no misogynist. The 1983 Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition of "misogynist" is "one who hates all women" as I pointed out in my glamourpuss feature for Comics International completed on March 1st this year. I thought your answer combined with my lead-in spoke volumes in the glamourpuss interview (enclosed – still unpublished as yet – their schedule is wrecked right now) but you know, since you bring it up, I’ll try to work in a blunt declaration into my column for #207 as well, because I’m allowed to be as personal as I like in my columns.
Can I just add that if I had ever thought for one second that you were a misogynist a) we would no longer be friends, just as I would cut off any friendship immediately with someone I discovered to be a racist or homophobe, b) PAGE 45 would no longer be promoting your works, c) I would not have included such a lengthy exhortation for the audience to buy JUDENHASS in my public introduction to the Broadway Cinema’s screening of PERSEPOLIS last night. I was speaking about geopolitics and autobiography in comics – in particular the works of Marjane Satrapi, Alison Bechdel and Rosalind Penfold – and to have included such a lengthy verbal side-bar about a work – however worthy – created by someone I believed to be a misogynist would have been sick, particularly in the context of Rosalind Penfold (Dragonslippers: This Is What An Abusive Relationship Looks Like).
We have political differences, Dave, but we both know that’s all they are.
I know you as a man of certain honour and extraordinary generosity; of kindness and compassion. I’ve experienced all four first-hand.
I don’t write this because I am awaiting a reply from any of our previous correspondences – you get on with your work and Page 45 will get on with promoting its brilliance – but because it needs to be said. As far as I’m concerned you post it wherever you want whenever you want.
I don’t write this as a "fan" of CEREBUS either. We’re well beyond that, you and I.
I simply cannot abide ill-informed gossip, trials by an over-emotional media, or injustices of any such sort.
Post the whole fucking thing, if you like.
Stephen
Stephen L. Holland
Owner/Manager
Page 45
(FORM & VOID is a bi-weekly column...the next installment arrives on June 2nd)
Look for the second issue of glamourpuss on sale in July!
Rick Sharer