Steven's Review of Cerebus: Reads TPB

[seric26]

I realize this is such a charged topic on websites such as ours (especially since the Sim world tour where he actively solicited support rather than criticism from all over the comics' web scene -- as if he'd suffered unfair persecution from extremists for far too long), but I'm not sure this sentence is really supported by the rest of Steven's review:

"The book is not misogynistic."

Your other examples lead one to assume the contrary. Especially if the writer falls somewhere between Oscar Wilde (who was humorously seldom politically correct, and gay and persecuted) and Sam Kinison (who is seen by many as racist and 'phobic in a variety of ways).

If you see (and I think you're quite right) Sim's anti-female rhetoric as being an expression of personal, relationship anguish (ie, he's burned from a bad heterosexual relationship), then I think you must also admit that hating one woman and hating all women is a leap Sim makes himself by generalizing gender onto abstract principles of thought and choice-making.

Classifying one sex as a "Void" in comparison to the other is an undeniable value judgment, however philosophical-sounding the vocabulary.

It's similar to the controversial Camille Paglia, who favors gay men as the creators of art and culture, but disparages lesbians (of which she is one) as incapable of producing anything of value despite their empty wombs.

Biological determinism, generalizations that erase individuality. Which is my definition of prejudice.

[Thom Young]

I enjoyed Steven's review because it was a thoughtful examination of the book that supported his reading of Sim's work. I much prefer these types of reviews to the ones that essentially say, "This comic is top notch. It has a good beat and it's easy to dance to. What more can I say?"

That being said, I disagree with Steven's assessment that the book does not have a misogynist tone. I think it clearly does. His belief that Sim must have been burned by one or more of his relationships with women rings true--and that is exactly one of the ways that leads a man to misogyny.

Misogyny (as are all forms of hatred and prejudice) are learned behaviors. No one is born hating.

In some cases, a misogynist learns his hatred of women from the male role models he had as a child. The son of a misogynist is more likely to become a misogynist himself, et cetera.

In other cases, the misogynist develops his hatred from interpreting (learning from) his own experiences with women. If he feels he has been unjustly treated by one or more women in his relationships (it usually takes more than one), then he is likely to classify all women in a certain way if these bad experiences began during his formative years--teens and early twenties--when his own maturity level impedes his ability to interpret experiences.

When I was an undergraduate at Boise State, I had a friend who lived on the other side of the campus in a university apartment that he shared with another guy whom he had known since junior high school. They both came from Twin Falls, Idaho--a small city in eastern Idaho (Boise is in western Idaho).

Their girlfriends from high school did not come to Boise State. They remained in Twin Falls, and the girls broke up with my two acquaintances (one was a friend, the other was just his roommate to me). This sent my friend into a period of depression (his girlfriend had been pregnant in high school but lost the baby either through abortion or miscarriage, I forget which).

He had always thought they would marry after he got out of college and that they could have another chance at having kids.

In the meantime, his roommate began dating a lot of young women at the university. I didn't pay attention to the nature of those relationships, but I believe he became bitter when he discovered that the women he was sleeping with were also sleeping with other men--and he may have contracted an STD.

Anyway, both began to refer to women as "that species"--relegating women to something other than human (and probably sub-human). Over the months, I began to see them as misogynists, and we drifted apart after the school year concluded.

This was twenty years ago. The last I heard (about seven years ago), my friend had been married for about seven years (now 14 if they're still together), and had two children with his wife. He seemed very happy seven years ago when I last spoke to him--without any indication of his misogynist past during college.

A similar experience also made me a bigot for a few years.

When I was a child, my parents were sort of "closet racists." This was in the 1960s and 1970s during the height of the Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Black Panther era--and my parents are very conservative Republicans.

They never openly spoke disparagingly about blacks, but there were times when it would slip out.

A teenage girl across the street had a black boyfriend, and my parents "didn't think that was right."

I was very young at the time, but I recall them being greatly offended by the Black Power salute given by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Summer Olympics.

When we moved to Cleveland, Ohio in 1974, my dad looked for a house while we stayed behind until our old house sold. He was looking at property in the suburbs on the west side of Cleveland and was staying clear of the eastern suburbs.

When I asked why, I was told because that the east side was where all the blacks lived. When I said I thought it sounded racist, I was told I didn't understand (which, of course, I didn't--I now understand that they could have said, "the east side is the impoverished side and there is a higher crime rate in that area").

Later, when I had been on my own for a few years and they were living in Portland, Oregon, my dad's company provided him with a private railroad car along with black servants (to recreate the atmosphere of railroad elegance of the 1880s to 1920s).

I visited them one evening on their car when it came through Boise. They had me come late at night after their guests had departed because they were too embarrassed of me for me to show up while guests were there--I had a mohawk, seven earrings (including a small metal skull and a real human tooth), and I wore shirts that exposed all my tattoos--not the son they wanted the mayor of Boise to meet.

Anyway, after the two black servants had retired to the back of the car out of earshot, I was told that one of them "had a daughter in medical school." There was a sense of incredulity in the way it was said.

Of course, I doubt the statement would have been spoken had the servant been white.

At least part of my bohemian rebellion was against the conservative values and attitudes of my parents--including their latent racism. I, of course, thought I could never be a racist because I was so much more enlightened.

Unfortunately, experience later proved me wrong.

A mere two years after my college friend had his misogynist period, I had my own racist period. I was still an undergraduate--a senior, I believe. My girlfriend had been in the hospital where she became friends with a male nurse from Africa. She claimed their relationship was entirely platonic.

Being in my early 20s, I had raging hormones and the immature tendency toward jealousy. I was told, though, that I was being an immature and possessive male, and that there was nothing wrong with her having male friends. After all, didn't I have some female friends among my classmates in the English department?

Her friend had a birthday, and she took a gift over to his house. She was gone for about two hours. When she returned, she was quiet and hugged me a long time without saying anything.

She then stopped visiting her friend and acted uncomfortable if he visited our house.

Finally, after about six months, she confided in me that he had raped her when she visited him that evening on his birthday.

Suddenly, for a period of about two years, I had a very palpable hatred for black males. It took me at least two years to reason my way back out of that racist period. I know that my own immaturity colored my perception of that experience, and I had to gain more "enlightenment" and "maturity" to get out of the racist attitude I briefly possessed until my mid twenties. Now my hatred is consigned to that one man from 20 years ago.

There is little doubt in my mind that Sim was a misogynist when he wrote volume nine of Cerebus.

I have no way of knowing if he is still a misogynist.

After all, people change over time.

There is more I want to write--not about misogyny or racism, but about things that I see going on in Cerebus volume nine that Steven didn't address and that I don't believe Sim realized at the time he was writing it. However, I'll save that for later.

[BariSteven]

Originally Posted by Thom Young

I enjoyed Steven's review because it was a thoughtful examination of the book that supported his reading of Sim's work. I much prefer these types of reviews to the ones that essentially say, "This comic is top notch. It has a good beat and it's easy to dance to. What more can I say?"

That being said, I disagree with Steven's assessment that the book does not have a misogynist tone. I think it clearly does. His belief that Sim must have been burned by one or more of his relationships with women rings true--and that is exactly one of the ways that leads a man to misogyny.

True, and yet does that make the entire book misogynist? The misogynist passages are not thesis of the whole book (making up less that sixth of the book) though it does overshadow Sim's argument that creative power is uncompromisable and rational.

I actually write two versions for the latter half of this review and Thom nicely spliced the two. But in the shuffle one paragraph was lost:

"The book is not misogynistic. If it were, that would be the major thesis of the entire book. The emotion/intellect discussion is part of the chief concept of what is truth, which is thoughtful and unabashed. This is the most challenging graphic novel I’ve ever read and certainly caused me to think more than any other work thus far in the medium. Dave Sim is bright and entertaining, but he’s not going to please you for the sake of making you “feel” good. He’s writing what he knows to be true. Forget about how its makes you feel, and find out what it makes you think."

Furthermore, I don't think everything he's written hereafter must be considered misogynist or put under that lens.

Misogyny (as are all forms of hatred and prejudice) are learned behaviors. No one is born hating.

In some cases, a misogynist learns his hatred of women from the male role models he had as a child. The son of a misogynist is more likely to become a misogynist himself, et cetera.

In other cases, the misogynist develops his hatred from interpreting (learning from) his own experiences with women. If he feels he has been unjustly treated by one or more women in his relationships (it usually takes more than one), then he is likely to classify all women in a certain way if these bad experiences began during his formative years--teens and early twenties--when his own maturity level impedes his ability to interpret experiences.

Absolutely. But when rational people conceptualize very valid philosophical treatises out of these sweeping value judgments of demographics, be it gender, race, or living, it will always distract their major aim. (Note: NOT talking about the NAZIs!) Sim doesn't want to talk about women so much as the "effect" women have had on society. Emotion, he argues, has robbed society of thinking and left all the most important decisions up to wayward "feeling" of the public at large. The answer isn't killing women, but combating emotion with thought, not succumbing to the distraction of the emotional level. Inevitably, that emotional level does mean the significant other.

That's where i was reminded of Oscar Wilde, and given Sim's affection for the man, the connection is valid. After Wilde discovered his homosexuality, he met a young aristocrat named Lord Alfred Douglas, Bosie. The relationship began as sexual but moved into more depraved realms as Wilde became a surrogate father to the emotionally needy young man. Its bizarre to think that one of the 20th century's greatest writers was distracted by a whiny, petulant teenager who demanded attention (and a great deal of money), but love is blind and, according to Sim, its empty, fear-inspiring, and insatiably hungry. In the end, Wilde was ruined by Bosie, losing his wife and children beside serving two years hard labor. And in the end, Wilde realized that Bosie's love for him was empty, fearsome, and insatiably hungry.

This leads to the resolution of Book 10, where Cerebus finally understands Jaka will not make him happy, even if she did love him. Its a strong message to other writers who use the consummation of love or just two characters coming together as a conclusion. But i'll leave for the next review.

When I was an undergraduate at Boise State, I had a friend who lived on the other side of the campus in a university apartment that he shared with another guy whom he had known since junior high school. They both came from Twin Falls, Idaho--a small city in eastern Idaho (Boise is in western Idaho).

Their girlfriends from high school did not come to Boise State. They remained in Twin Falls, and the girls broke up with my two acquaintances (one was a friend, the other was just his roommate to me). This sent my friend into a period of depression (his girlfriend had been pregnant in high school but lost the baby either through abortion or miscarriage, I forget which).

He had always thought they would marry after he got out of college and that they could have another chance at having kids.

In the meantime, his roommate began dating a lot of young women at the university. I didn't pay attention to the nature of those relationships, but I believe he became bitter when he discovered that the women he was sleeping with were also sleeping with other men--and he may have contracted an STD.

Anyway, both began to refer to women as "that species"--relegating women to something other than human (and probably sub-human). Over the months, I began to see them as misogynists, and we drifted apart after the school year concluded.

This was twenty years ago. The last I heard (about seven years ago), my friend had been married for about seven years (now 14 if they're still together), and had two children with his wife. He seemed very happy seven years ago when I last spoke to him--without any indication of his misogynist past during college.

A similar experience also made me a bigot for a few years.

When I was a child, my parents were sort of "closet racists." This was in the 1960s and 1970s during the height of the Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Black Panther era--and my parents are very conservative Republicans.

They never openly spoke disparagingly about blacks, but there were times when it would slip out.

A teenage girl across the street had a black boyfriend, and my parents "didn't think that was right."

I was very young at the time, but I recall them being greatly offended by the Black Power salute given by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Summer Olympics.

When we moved to Cleveland, Ohio in 1974, my dad looked for a house while we stayed behind until our old house sold. He was looking at property in the suburbs on the west side of Cleveland and was staying clear of the eastern suburbs.

When I asked why, I was told because that the east side was where all the blacks lived. When I said I thought it sounded racist, I was told I didn't understand (which, of course, I didn't--I now understand that they could have said, "the east side is the impoverished side and there is a higher crime rate in that area").

Later, when I had been on my own for a few years and they were living in Portland, Oregon, my dad's company provided him with a private railroad car along with black servants (to recreate the atmosphere of railroad elegance of the 1880s to 1920s).

I visited them one evening on their car when it came through Boise. They had me come late at night after their guests had departed because they were too embarrassed of me for me to show up while guests were there--I had a mohawk, seven earrings (including a small metal skull and a real human tooth), and I wore shirts that exposed all my tattoos--not the son they wanted the mayor of Boise to meet.

Anyway, after the two black servants had retired to the back of the car out of earshot, I was told that one of them "had a daughter in medical school." There was a sense of incredulity in the way it was said.

Of course, I doubt the statement would have been spoken had the servant been white.

At least part of my bohemian rebellion was against the conservative values and attitudes of my parents--including their latent racism. I, of course, thought I could never be a racist because I was so much more enlightened.

Unfortunately, experience later proved me wrong.

A mere two years after my college friend had his misogynist period, I had my own racist period. I was still an undergraduate--a senior, I believe. My girlfriend had been in the hospital where she became friends with a male nurse from Africa. She claimed their relationship was entirely platonic.

Being in my early 20s, I had raging hormones and the immature tendency toward jealousy. I was told, though, that I was being an immature and possessive male, and that there was nothing wrong with her having male friends. After all, didn't I have some female friends among my classmates in the English department?

Her friend had a birthday, and she took a gift over to his house. She was gone for about two hours. When she returned, she was quiet and hugged me a long time without saying anything.

She then stopped visiting her friend and acted uncomfortable if he visited our house.

Finally, after about six months, she confided in me that he had raped her when she visited him that evening on his birthday.

Suddenly, for a period of about two years, I had a very palpable hatred for black males. It took me at least two years to reason my way back out of that racist period. I know that my own immaturity colored my perception of that experience, and I had to gain more "enlightenment" and "maturity" to get out of the racist attitude I briefly possessed until my mid twenties. Now my hatred is consigned to that one man from 20 years ago.

There is little doubt in my mind that Sim was a misogynist when he wrote volume nine of Cerebus.

I have no way of knowing if he is still a misogynist.

After all, people change over time.

Wow, Thom, its like we shared a beer across the internet. I absolutely agree with your point that people change and moved by your openness. I would add that although you came to focus your anger toward that one man rather than his race, I don't know if Sim has done something similar. That would be a really interesting question to pose to him: Do you still maintain that women are emotional voids?

There is more I want to write--not about misogyny or racism, but about things that I see going on in Cerebus volume nine that Steven didn't address and that I don't believe Sim realized at the time he was writing it. However, I'll save that for later.

There is so much in "Reads" that is unbelievably exciting and wonderful, namely Sim's prose, that i just didn't have time to get into. Or here either -- i have to go to work now.

[Thom Young]

Originally Posted by BariSteven

True, and yet does that make the entire book misogynist? The misogynist passages are not thesis of the whole book (making up less that sixth of the book) though it does overshadow Sim's argument that creative power is uncompromisable and rational.

His ideas about creative power, et cetera, are what I want to write more about when I have time:

Originally Posted by Thom Young

There is more I want to write--not about misogyny or racism, but about things that I see going on in Cerebus volume nine that Steven didn't address and that I don't believe Sim realized at the time he was writing it. However, I'll save that for later.

It's going to be a long post about Modern philosophy and Postmodern aesthetics and Nietzsche's view on the Apollonian and Dionysian foundation of Greek art, et cetera.

When I have time.

Originally Posted by BariSteven

I actually write two versions for the latter half of this review and Thom nicely spliced the two. But in the shuffle one paragraph was lost:

"The book is not misogynistic. If it were, that would be the major thesis of the entire book. The emotion/intellect discussion is part of the chief concept of what is truth, which is thoughtful and unabashed. This is the most challenging graphic novel I’ve ever read and certainly caused me to think more than any other work thus far in the medium. Dave Sim is bright and entertaining, but he’s not going to please you for the sake of making you “feel” good. He’s writing what he knows to be true. Forget about how its makes you feel, and find out what it makes you think."

I apologize for leaving that paragraph out. I had already extensively edited your review last week--correcting mechanics, et cetera--when I asked for revisions to the two paragraphs that I couldn't edit.

You then sent a much longer review (which I appreciated), and most of that second version was also in the first version, so I tried to splice the new paragraphs into the version I had edited last week.

Somehow I must have missed that paragraph.

Originally Posted by BariSteven

Furthermore, I don't think everything he's written hereafter must be considered misogynist or put under that lens.

Neither do I:

Originally Posted by Thom Young

I have no way of knowing if he is still a misogynist.

After all, people change over time.

Originally Posted by BariSteven

Absolutely. But when rational people conceptualize very valid philosophical treatises out of these sweeping value judgments of demographics, be it gender, race, or living, it will always distract their major aim.

He's making philsophical and aesthetic judgments that would best be addressed through the concepts already available in discussions of Rationalism/Empiricism vs. Romanticism as the dual views of Modern philosophy--or by discussing the Apollonian vs. Dionysian in art.

He gets into the realm of misogyny when he decides to move those dialectics into a male vs. female conflict, and privileges the male traits over the female.

I really do want to go into this more later.

Originally Posted by BariSteven

Sim doesn't want to talk about women so much as the "effect" women have had on society. Emotion, he argues, has robbed society of thinking and left all the most important decisions up to wayward "feeling" of the public at large.

What he's really doing is taking the traditional dichotomy in Modern philosophy (Rationalism/Empiricism vs. Romanticism) and he's assigning "maleness" to the former and "femaleness" to the latter--and then blaming women for the Romantic attributes in our society (which are most assuredly there).

However, rather than attacking the tenets of Romanticism, he blames the Romantic elements in our society on women--which is a ridiculous argument. The majority of Romantic philosophers were men--such as all of the German Romantic philosophers along with William Godwin, Percy Shelley, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau.

I dare say the only woman who I would consider a Romantic philosopher (of a sort, more of a Romantic activist than a philosopher, was Godwin's wife Mary Wollstonecraft--their daughter, of course, married Percy Shelley and wrote Frankenstein).

Later, Emma Goldman's essays on anarchism have an obvious Romantic foundation--though she, too, was more of an activist and ideologist rather than a pure philosopher.

Sim is taking the influence of the Romantics (almost all of whom were men) and he is blaming the Romanticism in our society on women. It's ridiculous.

And, again, I want to write about this even more when I get time.

Originally Posted by BariSteven

The answer isn't killing women, but combating emotion with thought, not succumbing to the distraction of the emotional level. Inevitably, that emotional level does mean the significant other.

Romantics as the significant "Other"--to bring Postmodern philosophy into play--which Sim projects onto women.

[seric26]

Originally Posted by BariSteven

True, and yet does that make the entire book misogynist? The misogynist passages are not thesis of the whole book (making up less that sixth of the book) though it does overshadow Sim's argument that creative power is uncompromisable and rational.

I actually write two versions for the latter half of this review and Thom nicely spliced the two. But in the shuffle one paragraph was lost:

"The book is not misogynistic. If it were, that would be the major thesis of the entire book. The emotion/intellect discussion is part of the chief concept of what is truth, which is thoughtful and unabashed. This is the most challenging graphic novel I’ve ever read and certainly caused me to think more than any other work thus far in the medium. Dave Sim is bright and entertaining, but he’s not going to please you for the sake of making you “feel” good. He’s writing what he knows to be true. Forget about how its makes you feel, and find out what it makes you think."

Misogyny doesn't have to be a thesis or even a conscious aim on the part of a writer for their work to be misogynistic. It can be an unhappy accident, an unexamined prejudice, an impulse born out of anger and vitriol, or even be present in a book which doesn't discuss women at all (as in the case of categorical omission where women's history is discounted and male history is priveleged).

Furthermore, I don't think everything he's written hereafter must be considered misogynist or put under that lens.

Once he evinced the trait, it's fair to continuously judge him on it I think. The conclusion may be that other works are not, but "Reads" is the origin of the whole controversy, as I understand it.

Sim doesn't want to talk about women so much as the "effect" women have had on society. Emotion, he argues, has robbed society of thinking and left all the most important decisions up to wayward "feeling" of the public at large. The answer isn't killing women, but combating emotion with thought, not succumbing to the distraction of the emotional level. Inevitably, that emotional level does mean the significant other.

Inevitably, feeling is an important component of the human (male and female) experience, and can't simply be reasoned away. However much someone who's feelings have been hurt wishes it could.

That's where i was reminded of Oscar Wilde, and given Sim's affection for the man, the connection is valid. After Wilde discovered his homosexuality, he met a young aristocrat named Lord Alfred Douglas, Bosie. The relationship began as sexual but moved into more depraved realms as Wilde became a surrogate father to the emotionally needy young man.

I'm not sure I'd view Wilde's homosexuality as something he discovered, but I love the idea of "more depraved realms" than the sexual.

Its bizarre to think that one of the 20th century's greatest writers was distracted by a whiny, petulant teenager who demanded attention (and a great deal of money), but love is blind and, according to Sim, its empty, fear-inspiring, and insatiably hungry.

19th Century, really, as he died in 1900 and was a Victorian through and through.

In the end, Wilde was ruined by Bosie, losing his wife and children beside serving two years hard labor. And in the end, Wilde realized that Bosie's love for him was empty, fearsome, and insatiably hungry.

Was he ruined by Bosie, or was he ruined by a society that viewed all male/male love (Wilde called his orientation "Socratic") as indecent and deserving of punishment? He was ruined by scandal, but it's a scandal that would play out differently these days (unless you're a Republican politician or priest).

This leads to the resolution of Book 10, where Cerebus finally understands Jaka will not make him happy, even if she did love him. Its a strong message to other writers who use the consummation of love or just two characters coming together as a conclusion. But i'll leave for the next review.

That sounds like an important message; it's too bad Sim's misogyny has hampered his ability to express himself artistically.

[seric26]

Originally Posted by Thom Young

He's making philsophical and aesthetic judgments that would best be addressed through the concepts already available in discussions of Rationalism/Empiricism vs. Romanticism as the dual views of Modern philosophy--or by discussing the Apollonian vs. Dionysian in art.

That's why I mentioned Camille Paglia above: she sees that division too, though she terms it Apollonian and Chthonian.

He gets into the realm of misogyny when he decides to move those dialectics into a male vs. female conflict, and privileges the male traits over the female.

Exactly.

What he's really doing is taking the traditional dichotomy in Modern philosophy (Rationalism/Empiricism vs. Romanticism) and he's assigning "maleness to the former and "femaleness" to the latter--and then blaming women for the Romantic attributes in our society (which are most assuredly there).

However, rather than attacking the tenets of Romanticism, he blames the Romantic elements in our society on women--which is a ridiculous argument. The majority of Romantic philosophers were men--such as all of the German Romantic philosophers along with William Godwin, Percy Shelley, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau.

Very important context for his views, which to some extent have been so noted because they SOUND LIKE pretty heady stuff for comic books. So many readers have simply been impressed by his ability to present his ideas so forcefully in this medium. But here's where one's intellectual theses must be tested in a larger realm and tradition of thought.

Sim is taking the influence of the Romantics (almost all of whom were men) and he is blaming the Romanticism in our society on women. It's ridiculous.

Romantics as the significant "Other"--to bring Postmodern philosophy into play--which Sim projects onto women.

Yes, that's the most insidious part. Denigrating women and "feeling" simultaneously, just completely unacceptable. And as if there's anything new at all about suggesting reason as more useful than emotion since the Enlightenment.

[Thom Young]

Originally Posted by seric26

Misogyny doesn't have to be a thesis or even a conscious aim on the part of a writer for their work to be misogynistic.

Exactly. In fact, works of fiction don't actually have a thesis--though if part of the Reads is more of an essay than a story, then that part might well have a thesis. However, I wouldn't say that misogyny is the thesis of the essay.

Rather, the thesis of the essay is something like "Romantic philosophy has had a negative effect on our society and we must focus on the Rationalism/Empiricism foundation on which Western culture has been based since the Age of Enlightenment."

Sim attempted to support that thesis, though, by using examples that reveal a hatred toward women since they are equated with all that is wrong with society (i.e., with "the Other").

[Thom Young]

Originally Posted by seric26

I'm not sure I'd view Wilde's homosexuality as something he discovered, but I love the idea of "more depraved realms" than the sexual.

Originally Posted by seric26

19th Century, really, as he died in 1900 and was a Victorian through and through.

Yeah, 1901 was the start of the 20th century, so Wilde was 19th century all the way.

However, it could be argued that (like Billy the Kid is used by Jack Spicer as the harbinger of 20th century violence) Wilde was a harbinger of the 20th century--case in point:

Originally Posted by seric26

Was he ruined by Bosie, or was he ruined by a society that viewed all male/male love (Wilde called his orientation "Socratic") as indecent and deserving of punishment? He was ruined by scandal, but it's a scandal that would play out differently these days.

Exactly!

[Thom Young]

When Shawn quoted bits of my earlier post, I realized that one of my statements could be misunderstood (I needed an editor)--so, just to be clear about this bit:

Originally Posted by Thom Young

What he's really doing is . . . blaming women for the Romantic attributes in our society (which are most assuredly there).

I am agreeing that our society has many attributes that are the result of the Romantic movement--particularly German, English, and American society.

I am not claiming, though, that these attributes are necessarily bad. Sim seems to be claiming that these Romantic attributes are bad (which is ironic since much of Cerebus relies on Romantic aesthetics).

I think that there are times when these Romantic attributes are bad. However, even the bad things should not be blamed on women. Neither should they necessarily be blamed on Romanticism. The philosophy isn't at fault if the media tends to privilege emotional reactions over rational thought.

It makes for "better television" (relative to ratings) to show volatile emotional responses rather than intellectuals sitting around and intellectualizing about world events.

With Hurricane Ike about to hit Texas, and with warnings of "certain death" already being espoused by the government and focused on by the media, we are likely to be inundated with a great deal of emotional reactions to the destruction left in the wake of the hurricane.

That will be "better television" than, say, an intellectual discussion on the Postmodern perspective related to the September 11 attacks from seven years ago as we mark the anniversary of that event.

Both are valid and necessary, but the media privileges one over the other (the Romantic over the Rational because the Romantic is more visceral and thus brings in better ratings).

We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim
Let the truth of love be lighted
Let the love of truth shine clear
Sensibility, armed with sense and liberty,
With the heart and mind united
In a single, perfect sphere