Steven's review of Glamourpuss #4

[seric26]

I'm surprised. It's one thing to defend Dave Sim from charges of sexism, but to actually put him forward as a feminist?

That's just perversity.

Originally Posted by steven.m.bari

Lastly, let’s consider the character of “Glamourpuss” who inhabits the book as its editor and chief writer. In his review of Glamourpuss # 2, fellow Comics Bulletin contributor Matthew J. Brady posited that she is a manifestation of Sim’s anti-feminist views.

I just myself looked at this issue in the shop (wanting to appreciate the artistic style) and was turned off by the way he represents all the cover models: looking idiotic with their tongues hanging out.

Despite writing some rather challenging works in the past,

Who wrote which challenging works? Sim? The subject has gotten lost in this clause.

I don’t presume Glamourpuss and its titular character to be a continuation of themes in that massive 6,000 page novel called Cerebus. Moreover, reflect on the less politically correct statements in this issue concerning leaving one’s stuff in the ladies’ locker room: “Remember most trophy wives used to be airline ‘stewardesses’ and other sorts of bipedal vermin. They will literally gnaw through a burglar proof combination lock in second if there’s a Prada tank or Nine West belt at stake.” Is this any different than Jon Stewart’s playful swings at Republicans on The Daily Show?

Does Jon Stewart present Republicans as predatory "vermin" driven by shallow, venal (yet also animalistic and simplistic) needs? Does he imply they lack consciousness of their actions?

Glamourpuss is shortsighted and materialist, but so are the people she is meant to satirizing. “A possible upside of the financial crisis will be a return to a more authentic time in the city [New York City],” speculates photographer Taryn Simon in the “Norwich Notes” of this December’s Vogue. How “authentic” are we talking here? Street crime? Graffiti? Mob hits? Sex clubs? Race warfare? As one of the unemployed masses, I’m itchin’ for something to do, so be specific!

Was this a quote from an actual issue of Vogue? Made by you, or quoted by Sim in the story? Or was it a piece of slander?

I believe that Sim’s target of satire in Glamourpuss is not women, but the industry that would propel them into a cycle of self-loathing and intellectual degradation. If Sim chose to assail Betty Friedan over Ann Wintour (editor ofVogue) than you could maintain Brady’s argument.

No, it is not required that one attack actual feminists in order to be called an anti-feminist. One needs only attack women, as a group.

And it's Anna Wintour.

But Sim’s faux articles capture a fundamental feminist concept: “There was a strange discrepancy between the reality of our lives as women and the image to which we were trying to conform.” -- Betty Friedan in The Feminine Mystique.

Is there a place in Sim's narrative where the 'realities of women's lives' are depicted, or does he spend all his energy on mocking this image he thinks they're trying to conform to?

It's not exactly groundbreaking for someone to attack the fashion industry as sexist. Feminists began that critique back in the 1960s. But they tried to do it without also making fun of women.

And satirizing that disparity, while observing its resultant beauty, makes Glamourpus a funny and fine looking book to read.

The beauty of the disparity? The beauty of the models? The beauty of Sim's art? The beauty of Sim's satire? I'm simultaneously confused and unconvinced by this reading of Sim's work.

[BariSteven]

Originally Posted by seric26

I'm surprised. It's one thing to defend Dave Sim from charges of sexism, but to actually put him forward as a feminist?

That's just perversity.

"I believe that Sim’s target of satire in Glamourpuss is not women, but the industry that would propel them into a cycle of self-loathing and intellectual degradation. If Sim chose to assail Betty Friedan over Ann Wintour (editor of Vogue) than you could maintain Brady’s argument. But Sim’s faux articles capture a fundamental feminist concept: “There was a strange discrepancy between the reality of our lives as women and the image to which we were trying to conform.” -- Betty Friedan in The Feminine Mystique."

Read before you write, seric. Sim is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a feminist, but his target of satire is the indeed a craw in feminism: social image v. reality. Although he does not attack with the vitriol of feminists, the beauty industry is who he is lampooning. Not women.

Originally Posted by seric26

Who wrote which challenging works? Sim? The subject has gotten lost in this clause.

"Despite writing some rather challenging works in the past, I don’t presume Glamourpuss and its titular character to be a continuation of themes in that massive 6,000 page novel called Cerebus."

Yes, i didn't insert the name of author Dave Sim into the sentence, but inserted (quite dramatically) his 6,000 page opus. If you can't follow that, my apologies.

Originally Posted by seric26

Does Jon Stewart present Republicans as predatory "vermin" driven by shallow, venal (yet also animalistic and simplistic) needs? Does he imply they lack consciousness of their actions?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/11s0tsgpVWg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/11s0tsgpVWg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Uh yeah. he does. But its funny. So is Glamourpuss.

Originally Posted by seric26

Was this a quote from an actual issue of Vogue? Made by you, or quoted by Sim in the story? Or was it a piece of slander?

"Glamourpuss is shortsighted and materialist, but so are the people she is meant to satirizing. “A possible upside of the financial crisis will be a return to a more authentic time in the city [New York City],” speculates photographer Taryn Simon in the “Norwich Notes” of this December’s Vogue.

Originally Posted by seric26

No, it is not required that one attack actual feminists in order to be called an anti-feminist. One needs only attack women, as a group.

Uh, no. As much as feminism is about women, it is wide varying socio-political ideology that has developed by social advances and the intellectual study. Although it speaks on behalf of women, women do not speak on behalf of it.

Originally Posted by seric26

Is there a place in Sim's narrative where the 'realities of women's lives' are depicted, or does he spend all his energy on mocking this image he thinks they're trying to conform to?

He talks about Alex Raymond and Rip Kirby mostly.

Originally Posted by seric26

It's not exactly groundbreaking for someone to attack the fashion industry as sexist. Feminists began that critique back in the 1960s. But they tried to do it without also making fun of women.

"Groundbreaking?" When did i write that?

Originally Posted by seric26

The beauty of the disparity? The beauty of the models? The beauty of Sim's art? The beauty of Sim's satire? I'm simultaneously confused and unconvinced by this reading of Sim's work.

“There was a strange discrepancy between the reality of our lives as women and the image to which we were trying to conform.”-Betty Friedan

[Thom Young]

Originally Posted by seric26

I just myself looked at this issue in the shop (wanting to appreciate the artistic style) and was turned off by the way he represents all the cover models: looking idiotic with their tongues hanging out.

Here's a good site about that: http://www.uvm.edu/~tstreete/powerpo...roduction.html

[vark]

Originally Posted by BariSteven

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/11s0tsgpVWg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/11s0tsgpVWg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

eep!

Uh yeah. he does. But its funny. So is Glamourpuss.

Yeah, he does, but he doesn't (at least to my mind) imply that Republicans behave without consciousness, only without conscience. So point for both you and Shawn.

“There was a strange discrepancy between the reality of our lives as women and the image to which we were trying to conform.”-Betty Friedan

As both a polemicist and a pedant, I feel qualified to play the Pedantic! card. I think the stresses in that sentence are obvious. Your reply doesn't address the question, though. Is it necessary for Sim to mock or patronize this discrepancy rather than to observe it rationally and attempt to draw conclusions?

[seric26]

Originally Posted by BariSteven

Read before you write, seric. Sim is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a feminist, but his target of satire is the indeed a craw in feminism: social image v. reality. Although he does not attack with the vitriol of feminists, the beauty industry is who he is lampooning. Not women.

I did read that, and I know that was your assertion. But by comparing Sim's techniques to a quote from Friedan, you are asserting a common causality that really sticks in my craw, and that wasn't really supported by how you described the book.

"Despite writing some rather challenging works in the past, I don’t presume Glamourpuss and its titular character to be a continuation of themes in that massive 6,000 page novel called Cerebus."

Yes, i didn't insert the name of author Dave Sim into the sentence, but inserted (quite dramatically) his 6,000 page opus. If you can't follow that, my apologies.

Since the subsequent clause began with an "I" statement, the previous one needed to assert a different subject to be clear. If it was still you, you might have said "Despite having read some of his rather challenging works .... " etc.

Uh yeah. he does. But its funny. So is Glamourpuss.

I'm not really a regular watcher of the Daily Show, so I was actually asking. However, the reason one would be okay with me and not the other: I hate Republicans, too. I don't hate women.

"Glamourpuss is shortsighted and materialist, but so are the people she is meant to satirizing. “A possible upside of the financial crisis will be a return to a more authentic time in the city [New York City],” speculates photographer Taryn Simon in the “Norwich Notes” of this December’s Vogue.

I wasn't sure if this was an actual editorial or one of the "faux" articles you describe Sim as creating in Glamourpuss.

But I later found the full-screen grab on your website, presumably from the December Vogue. So Simon said it.

In which case I would say she means what people usually mean by "more authentic," ie, an attitude reflecting financial realities and sober truths rather than overblown speculation and fiscal self-indulgence. A simplistic and even shallow sentiment, perhaps, but not exactly an offensive or ignorant one.

Uh, no. As much as feminism is about women, it is wide varying socio-political ideology that has developed by social advances and the intellectual study. Although it speaks on behalf of women, women do not speak on behalf of it.

I can't follow your point here. Nor have you followed mine. In fact I think you have a basic misunderstanding: since feminism speaks on behalf of women, you do attack it when you attack them. That's just logic.

He talks about Alex Raymond and Rip Kirby mostly.

So though he parodies women with the faux writer/editor known as Glamourpuss, he actually takes a biographic approach to the lives and work of real men in the same text. Interesting.

"Groundbreaking?" When did i write that?

Okay, no, you didn't. But you did write this: "while his biting comments on the women’s beauty industry remain hilarious." To which I respond they are "biting" a well-trod ground.

“There was a strange discrepancy between the reality of our lives as women and the image to which we were trying to conform.”-Betty Friedan

As I said, I don't follow the logic of how the Friedan quote pertains to a satire you still find "fine looking" and possessing of "beauty." If that which Sim lampoons still looks beautiful to you, then what has he done for the lives of real women?

[MadBastard]

Originally Posted by vark

Yeah, he does, but he doesn't (at least to my mind) imply that Republicans behave without consciousness, only without conscience. So point for both you and Shawn.

While I don't hate Republicans (I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, kind of the pre-op of the political scene) I find the Daily Show hilarious, often because it's depiction of the Republican foot soldiers as frothing, rapid dogs who only obey their programming, regardless of how ludicrous, acting without consciouness or conscience. Of course, consciousness has about a dozen meanings, and I'm only refering to one (i.e. awareness), so I'm not going to get into another dictionary based argument around here. No sir.

[vark]

Originally Posted by MadBastard

While I don't hate Republicans (I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, kind of the pre-op of the political scene) I find the Daily Show hilarious, often because it's depiction of the Republican foot soldiers as frothing, rapid dogs who only obey their programming, regardless of how ludicrous, acting without consciouness or conscience. Of course, consciousness has about a dozen meanings, and I'm only refering to one (i.e. awareness), so I'm not going to get into another dictionary based argument around here. No sir.

No semantic wrangling this time, like, totally! I used the term in it's most common sense.

It's a crazy kind of tightrope that Stewart walks; he has to give the Democrats as equal a time as possible in the lampooning department, but when you have the ruling (Executive) party constantly embroiled in whacky hijinks, it's hard not to skew off in one direction. I suspect that his obligatory attacks on the White House will be of the "failed dreams and broken promises" variety, come next year. Stephen Colbert walks an ever narrower rope, though, as his "character" is essentially radical libertarian while his personal views are more centre-left. The new regime should offer him considerable fodder for his style of comedy.

As of next week Canada might see it's first ever (to the best of my knowledge) coalition government as the Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Quebecois have signed an accord covering the next two and a half years and extracted a promise from the Bloc not to topple the coalition for at least the first year (allowing one full and one interim budget). Opinion is exactly as divided as one would expect, with words like "coup" being tossed about. It isn't, though, it's both legal and constitutional. It's possible that the ruling minority Conservatives could request the Governor General to disolve the legislature (not literally, as fun an idea as it is) and call an immediate general election, but the legal side of the equation appears to prevent her (the G.G.) from doing so.

There was a Liberal/NDP coalition in Ontario about twenty years ago, toppling the moribund Progressive Conservative party (the federal P.C.'s evaporated and were largely absorbed into the new "Conservative" structure). This was quickly followed by a minority Liberal government and then the first New Democrat government in Ontario history, which was also a majority. They were ostensibly voted out because of their spending practices and running up the debt (at a time when everyone else was doing the same thing), only to be replaced by a new version of the P.C. party who promised fiscal conservatism, cutbacks, and reduction in the size of government and bureaucracy. Problem is they kept at least two sets of books and by the time they were ousted a few years ago (by the Liberals), they'd managed to add tens of billions to the provincial debt under the rubric of a "balanced budget". That finance minister, Jim Flaherty, is now the federal conservative finance minister. Who recently announced billions and billions in bailout and infrastructure money to stimulate the economy in exactly the same was as the Ontario NDP government. Sauce for the goose, really. When "they" do it, it's fuzzy headed socialist irresponsibility; when "we" do it (spend their way out of a recession), it's "proven economic strategy". Oh, hypocrisy, they name is politics.

Hey, how 'bout that Glamourpuss, eh?

[seric26]

Originally Posted by vark

Sauce for the goose, really. When "they" do it, it's fuzzy headed socialist irresponsibility; when "we" do it (spend their way out of a recession), it's "proven economic strategy". Oh, hypocrisy, they name is politics.

Hey, how 'bout that Glamourpuss, eh?

The latter topic is only slightly less complicated than Canadian politics, methinks.

[Dave Wallace]

Originally Posted by seric26

Okay, no, you didn't. But you did write this: "while his biting comments on the women’s beauty industry remain hilarious." To which I respond they are "biting" a well-trod ground.

I love a good mixed metaphor. I think that my favourite one was a statement made by a British politician in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, who talked about people "sitting on their hands, putting their heads in the sand, and looking the other way". It just creates a wonderful image.

[BariSteven]

Originally Posted by vark

No semantic wrangling this time, like, totally! I used the term in it's most common sense.

It's a crazy kind of tightrope that Stewart walks; he has to give the Democrats as equal a time as possible in the lampooning department, but when you have the ruling (Executive) party constantly embroiled in whacky hijinks, it's hard not to skew off in one direction. I suspect that his obligatory attacks on the White House will be of the "failed dreams and broken promises" variety, come next year. Stephen Colbert walks an ever narrower rope, though, as his "character" is essentially radical libertarian while his personal views are more centre-left. The new regime should offer him considerable fodder for his style of comedy.

As of next week Canada might see it's first ever (to the best of my knowledge) coalition government as the Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Quebecois have signed an accord covering the next two and a half years and extracted a promise from the Bloc not to topple the coalition for at least the first year (allowing one full and one interim budget). Opinion is exactly as divided as one would expect, with words like "coup" being tossed about. It isn't, though, it's both legal and constitutional. It's possible that the ruling minority Conservatives could request the Governor General to disolve the legislature (not literally, as fun an idea as it is) and call an immediate general election, but the legal side of the equation appears to prevent her (the G.G.) from doing so.

There was a Liberal/NDP coalition in Ontario about twenty years ago, toppling the moribund Progressive Conservative party (the federal P.C.'s evaporated and were largely absorbed into the new "Conservative" structure). This was quickly followed by a minority Liberal government and then the first New Democrat government in Ontario history, which was also a majority. They were ostensibly voted out because of their spending practices and running up the debt (at a time when everyone else was doing the same thing), only to be replaced by a new version of the P.C. party who promised fiscal conservatism, cutbacks, and reduction in the size of government and bureaucracy. Problem is they kept at least two sets of books and by the time they were ousted a few years ago (by the Liberals), they'd managed to add tens of billions to the provincial debt under the rubric of a "balanced budget". That finance minister, Jim Flaherty, is now the federal conservative finance minister. Who recently announced billions and billions in bailout and infrastructure money to stimulate the economy in exactly the same was as the Ontario NDP government. Sauce for the goose, really. When "they" do it, it's fuzzy headed socialist irresponsibility; when "we" do it (spend their way out of a recession), it's "proven economic strategy". Oh, hypocrisy, they name is politics.

Hey, how 'bout that Glamourpuss, eh?

I think this could be the best post of all time I've ever seen!