Jordan Peterson: A Professor Against Political Correctness

Maps Of Meaning: The Architecture Of Belief

by Jordan B. Peterson 

FROM DAVE SIM:

Carson -- Please post your 9 January fax to AMOC with this reply. It will either start a discussion that might lead somewhere or will at least mean I only have to address the on-going Jordan Peterson question this once.

Carson Grubagh;
My original letter was typed directly into the FaxZero website I use to communicate with Dave so I do not have a copy of what I sent. Dave has been informed of this, but has not sent me scans of the fax, so I will summarize what was said:

During a phone conversation I pointed out to Dave that he would probably enjoy listening to Jordan Peterson. Apparently Dave hears this a lot. Dave commented that he should probably send Dr. Peterson a letter. The more I thought about it the better the idea sounded. It strikes me that Peterson, with his interest in archetypal meta-narratives would really enjoy Cerebus. It also seems that he would be impressed that Dave was twenty years or so ahead of the curve on the battles Peterson himself is now fighting.

I outlined the kind of viewership and Patreon support Peterson receives, the fact that he often interviews other figures who have been ground down by the SJW war-machine, and proposed that a conversation between Dave and Peterson would probably be very interesting and could lead to a strong uptick in sales of Cerebus through cerebusdownloads.com. 

It wouldn't be right to just ask the man for publicity, so I suggested Dave watch Peterson's interviews with Dave Rubin and Camille Paglia to get an overview of where he stands now, as well as read Maps of Meaning to get a more robust understanding of his central theses, then write Peterson a thoughtful letter on the works and send along a complimentary set of Cerebus GNs to initiate a discussion.

Doing this asap struck me as prudent, given the typical time span of internet celebrity.

Hi Carson: 

I was kidding about contacting Jordan Peterson. 

Kid. Ding. 

Short answer: Canada doesn't work like that. In Canada, particularly in Toronto, particularly at the University of Toronto, I would be seen as a high-school dropout first of all. Even acknowledging that a high-school dropout exists and should be acknowledged for some reason would severely hurt Peterson's Canadian "higher-ed cred" and gain him nothing. "Has everything eroded in the General Trumpian Malaise to the point where we're actually listening to high-school dropouts now? That kind of thing. 

Second of all, in Canadian frames of reference, I wouldn't be seen as a writer or an artist. To be considered a writer or an artist in Canada, you have to get Canada Council Grants and/or be a member of the Order of Canada (which consists only of liberals and Liberals for the most part) or be "tapped into" the clique that has always controlled arts in Canada. No one Jordan Peterson knows and/or respects would have any idea who or what Dave Sim is. And if they did, they would pretend that they didn't because, in Canada, Dave Sim is "not on". 

The fact that I run my own publishing company would register as a) "vanity press" (you publish yourself because the handful of elite Canadian publishers who decide who is and who isn't a writer or an artist in this country don't consider you good enough to publish) and b) vulgar. Publishing is a tainting necessity in Canada which no real writer or artist would, themselves, participate in except insofar as signing a book contract and having an agent. 

That having been said, there's no reason that any CEREBUS fan who thinks a prominent blen pensee individual like Jordan Peterson should be alerted to the fact that Dave Sim was addressing all this stuff 20 years ago can't take the bull by the horns and alert him. I mean, you can trying wagging your own academic credentials at him, but, in Canada, that's just going to tar you with the same brush, I think. "You have a (whatever degree from whatever legitimate American college/ university) and you're listening to what a high-school dropout is saying? How very ... American ... of you," is my guess as to what Jordan Peterson's default setting would be/will be. 

It's happened before, behind the scenes, where, at the urging of a CEREBUS fan I have sent Person X an autographed copy of my book or "Tangent" issue. I have never heard back from anyone in that situation. I don't "register" with anyone, so I spend-my time trying to figure out how to keep the whole lurching juggernaut going on a shoestring budget (to shoestring budget) (to shoestring budget) and how to form a succession which will be impervious to the worsening politically correct currents in our society. That doesn't work well but it works a lot better than expecting help from outside comics and inside comics celebrities. 

I agree with you that if Jordan Peterson wanted to help save CEREBUS, he could probably drive some traffic to cerebusdownloads.com. But that would require swimming very hard upstream against what I assume are his own presuppositions about high-school dropouts, unknown-to-the-Canadian-elite Canadian writers and artists, people who taint themselves by engaging in "vanity press" and Dave Sim, generally, being "not on" in Canada. 

Call it the HORTON HEARS A WHO Conundrum. "WE ARE HERE! WE ARE HERE!" Find out Jordan Peterson's contact information — whatever his e-mail address is at the University of Toronto — and deluge him with requests to interview Dave Sim and try to get more people buying CEREBUS trade paperbacks and 6,000 page digital collections. And tell him how well-educated you are, particularly if you went to school he would have heard of.

a) I can't picture CEREBUS fans doing that b) I can't picture Jordan Peterson giving me a second thought. He would just consider it weird Spam, I think.

Best,

Dave

So, what do we do folks? Do we campaign for Dave or do we let Dave have his peace and quiet out of the public eye? My guess is that if the contact does not come from Dave himself it will be even easier to ignore. I am sure Peterson receives WAY TOO MUCH MAIL. The only option to guarantee contact is dropping $200 to Peterson's Patreon which would buy a 45 min conversation.
 ~ Carson

Dave Sim: The Silence Of Your Friends

"Dave Sim: Misogynist Guru Of Self-Publishers"

The Comics Journal #174 (February 1995) 

Art by Bill Willingham

10 December 07

Hi Rick [Sharer]:

Well, you know, if you’ll forgive me for saying so, at least so far with your columns you're really not much different from anyone else who has written about "foolish Dave Sim the evil misogynist" since 1994.

You're documenting READS (sort of) – but you're also carefully pulling out the most provocative quotes which is pretty much guaranteed to get everyone riled up again (the opposite of getting them to think about what is being said) and you’re also, so far, being scrupulously careful not to offer your own opinions on whether you agree with anything that you’re quoting. So, the net effect tends to be an appearance of: not only not defending Dave Sim and his opinions but with the added detriment that you’re quoting me out of context to no good purpose. I mean, you deplore that no Comics Name has stood up and defended me publicly. Well, what would you think if some Comics Name suddenly started doing a bi-weekly column where they quoted all of the most provocative parts of READS but without actually saying, "This I agree with, this I disagree with."?

Particularly the really tough stuff where it takes guts to say, "I'll probably get everyone furious with me for saying this, but I think this stuff is self-evidently true and we’ve just blinded ourselves to it because our society, far from being misogynistic is actually misandrist. Our society hates men. Just ask any Dad who has had to go through the family law courts." If you really want to help the situation, I’d suggest that you cite some of your own examples and experiences instead of just quoting mine.

Yes, I think it was certainly true that EVERYONE in the field turned against me after issue 186 (which is a much, much larger group than the "mega-load of Marxist-feminists" of your description in your cover note). Certainly on the COMICS JOURNAL message boards -- as, I am told, it is to this day -- I was called every extreme name that they could think of, Gary Groth held his Star Chamber/Stalinist Show Trial of me at San Diego (or was it Wondercon?) without notifying me he was doing so and got massive ovations assassinating my character in a public venue, presumably, with the wholesale and enthusiastic endorsement of the convention organizers. Have you ever heard anyone attached to the Con where he did so speak out against the Con being used as a venue for criminal libel without even offering the subject of that criminal libel a chance to defend himself?

Bill Willingham finally phoned (the only one who did phone) to ask if I knew just how bad the attacks were getting, that this was completely unprecedented. Of course he didn't call until weeks into the cybernetic tarring and feathering and he certainly didn’t "stand up" on the COMICS JOURNAL message boards and say, "Listen, I think this is getting a little out of hand, here. We’re supposed to believe in freedom of speech in the comics field."

As Martin Luther King said (I’ll have to paraphrase here, I can’t find the quote) It isn't the venom of your enemies, it's the silence of your friends that gets you the most.

I accepted the inescapable conclusion (at the time and to this day) – that I didn’t have any friends – with reluctance but without regret. If the people I had considered friends to that point could stand by and do absolutely nothing for years on end while this was being done to me, what sort of friends were they?

The mistake they made and continue to make, of course, is in thinking that if you don't agree with Dave Sim publicly, if you shun him and damn him with faint praise that this will somehow appease the misandrist Marxist-feminist juggernaut devouring our society. It doesn't. All it does is show that males will take whatever females dish out no matter how bad it gets because men have chosen to be deathly afraid of women.

Affirmative action now means that 60% of all college admissions are women, 40% men. And men don't say anything about it, but just meekly submit to institutionalized gender imbalance as the "new normal". What does the ratio have to get to before men say something, or at least start to say something? 80-20? 90-10? 95-5?

Kowtowing to a bully is never – and will never be – the way to stop bullying.

I've never regretted taking a stand over the last thirteen years. On the contrary, knowing that I will be seen by history as one of the few willing to stand up for reality and that I was doing so for a good decade before anyone else, well it’s very satisfying. That and not having to pretend that I agree with Marxist-feminist b.s. on a daily basis. I wouldn’t trade that for the world.

I’ll be visiting www.comicsvillage.com early in February to promote my new title.

Dave

From "Dave Sim's Collected Letters 2007", a Cerebus Archive Kickstarter reward.

Dave Sim: "I Am Not A Feminist"

Mrs. Thatcher

Cerebus Vol 5: Jaka's Story (1990)

Art by Dave Sim & Gerhard

DAVE SIM:
(Note From The President, Cerebus #140, November 1990)

I just had a check-up. I'm not dying. I'm not even sick. I walk up nearly twenty flights of stairs a day. I exercise for an hour and a half every night. I don't smoke drugs any more. I don't drink alcohol anymore.

I feel like a big bag of shit.

It's probably just today (September 19). But I don't know. Just finished answering the mail that came in which took most of the day. Almost every letter was in reference to the end of Jaka's Story and Jaka's abortion. All the letters from women offered their opinions on the abortion debate; praised my writing and the artwork Ger and I do. And usually mentioned "Boy, get ready for an avalanche of hate mail." Oddly enough, it was only the male letters that lectured me on my politically incorrect positions, my "anti-feminism".

I am not a feminist.

Last time I checked that wasn't against the law. I used to be. A real Alan Alda type type. Have you noticed that the more intelligent women aren't feminists either? The ones who were feminists when that meant the advocacy of freedom (women's lib) and fairness? That's when I was a feminist. When the goal was a level playing field. Equal opportunity. Affirmative action pushed me part-way out the door; divy up the jobs so women get half of them. Like the Ontario College of Art which will not hire any men until the faculty is 50% men and 50% women. Affirmative for whom? At the expense of whom? National day-care in political platforms pushed me a little further out the door. Spending $10,000 in taxpayer's money to take care of a waitress's kids for a year while she goes out and works, paying $4,000 a year in taxes. Margaret Thatcher authorizing widescale death in the Falkland Islands. Excuse me, but wasn't the idea of female leaders supposed to be that they would negotiate instead of using violence to settle things? I'm almost all the way out the door on that one.

When I heard Cokie Roberts mention that she has two teen-aged children (I would still do it until her eyes changed colour); one male and one female. The male had to register for the draft at a specific age by law. The daughter doesn't have to, but must be allowed in the army if she chooses . . .well, that's not fair! They should both have to register or they should both be allowed military service as an option.

At that point I realized Cokie Roberts and I were both out the door and down the hall, discussing fairness in a world gone politically correct.

Barbara Amiel (another good intellect I admire, though I frequently disagree with her) joined us, pointing out that if you are going to force a man to spend most of his adult life financing a child he helped create, it is not fair to say he has no choice in whether that fetus is aborted or not. To which I add; if I own something, I pay for its up-keep. If I own half of it, I pay half of its upkeep or I pay its upkeep half the time. If you own something you should pay for its upkeep. We've already established through our laws that a baby is an enlarged female organ completely under her control. Why do I have to spend eighteen years financing a part of your body? It is the law yes but it is unfair - which was what feminism, women's liberation was about when I was in favour of it; making that which was unfair fair or at least fairer.

"Take back the night" marches. Take back the night? The night belonged exclusively to women at one time, did it? Like the letter-writer who suggested all men should have a ten o'clock curfew so women can walk the streets safely. That's fair is it? How about "Share the night"?

I have been a white anglo-saxon protestant male all of my life and from the time I was fourteen (1970) I have been told just how wretched and unappealing and monstrous and vile a thing that is to be; in entertainment, newspapers, television; everywhere. And now I have other white anglo-saxon protestant males writing to tell me to change the way I think. I don't like it any better than women or minorities liked it.

And even if they make it illegal to not be, I still won't be a feminist.

Because the quest for fairness has gone elsewhere.

In my opinion. 

The inside front cover of the monthly 'Cerebus' comic-book (1977-2004) often included an editorial by Dave Sim titled "Note From The President". In these 'Notes' Dave wrote about anything that captured his interest at the time, and the editorials comprise an impressive (if eccentric) body of writing. You can read all of the editorials here...

Dave Sim: "A Little Mao Thought"

From "Dave Sim's Collected Letters 1990", a Cerebus Archive Kickstarter reward.

Five Questions On 'Male Light'

The Comics Journal #174 (February 1995)

Cover by Bill Willingham

DAVE SIM:
(from a reply to J. Hagey in Aardvark Comments, Cerebus #192, March 1995)

The following is a list of questions sent to me by J. Hagey, a freelance writer putting an article together on Cerebus 186 for The Comics Journal [which appeared in TCJ #174, February 1995]...

1. Including the letters appearing in your comic, what do you think of the response to the story/essay in issue 186? Has it met, or exceeded, what you were expecting?

This presupposes that expectation is the foundation or, in some measure, a significant element in creativity. What do I think of the response? The world seems to be composed of people who unable to separate what is factual from what is opinion. They find contrary opinions threatening in the extreme. It seems self-evident to me that if two people have widely differing views, then what is being discussed is not fact but opinion. I have been in receipt of a large pile of opinions, varying from the dispassionately reasoned to the hysterical. So what?

2. What was the reason behind this story/essay, in particular the way it was written. It reads like a treatis (sic) or manifesto. It seems to beg some kind of answer? What is your world view that this essay is based on?

How typical. Condense my world view so that it fits into a neat little box of grey type in The Comics Journal. Anyone whose world view could be condensed in such a way is hardly worth considering. It is your opinion that it reads like a manifesto. It is your opinion that it begs an answer. Why would that interest me?

3. What role does 'Male Light' uniquely fulfill in the society? For the individual?

Opinions would vary on what role the 'Male Light' fulfills in society, including whether it was a role, society itself, an aberration, an impediment, a platform, the fuel or the vehicle itself. I think I could argue each of these views with a degree of success. If we're going to talk about individuals, then we're going to have to talk about individuals. Of what individual are you speaking in soliciting my individual opinion? If you are speaking of 'the individual' in a collectivist sense, then you've missed the entirety of my point.

4. Who exactly do fall into the category of those having 'male light'?

Again, opinions would vary. Individuals who represent 'male light' to me are individuals who represent 'male light' to me. Period. I can't understand why the specifics would be of interest to anyone but myself. The misapprehension seems to be that I am attempting to build a contrary consensus. In my opinion, consensus wherever it is perceived to exist is an illusion, and trafficking in the illusory holds no appeal for me. I paint what I see. I would wholeheartedly urge others to do the same.

5. Lastly, I wonder, then, if the "Wife and Kids" are the bane of male light, do we owe our fathers anything for what we, as his brood, inflicted on him and his life?

It would be easy to say that this, too, is up to the individual. It scratches a larger surface in my own case and, at the risk of muddying the water by injecting my own views, it seems to come down to an issue of 'Honour thy father and thy mother'. This is not an edict to be taken lightly. Is the decision of the late twentieth-century individual to interpret this a different way (i.e., the best way to honour my mother and my father is to make myself into the best possible person according to my own perceptions of who that is - to be true to myself, whatever the resistance and consequences implied by that) from the traditional view (i.e., you're too busy to come over for Sunday dinner, Mr. Big Shot? You can't pick up a phone?) a self-serving rationalisation? Not being a father, all I can do is go by the 'party' line that seems nearly universal in parental circles: as long as it makes him happy and he's not hurting anybody, more power to him. I think unhappy children make parents unhappier that do happy children. I'm a very happy child. I just hope that's good enough.

Impossible Thing #16?

DAVE SIM:
To William C. of North Carolina:

Thanks for the fan letter.  Answering your submission for Impossible Thing #16:

"It is normal for a woman to use sex toys to practically mutilate their sex organs and desensitize them to normal relations, but if a man so much as looks at a picture or in any way expresses a natural response to anyone except his 'partner', he is chided most severely and punished to excess, in the typical modern female hysterical way."

As to women's sex toys and masturbation per se. I think the point is more "What are you imagining?" rather than "What are you doing physically?"  If you are imagining an illegal act -- pedophilia, underage sex, invitation to sexual touching, raping, being raped, incest, physical restraint, physical harm -- or an illicit act -- adultery and fornication of any kind -- I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that there are consequences to that. Ultimately, because God is omniscient and Judgement Day does exist.  We'll find out on Judgement Day.

 If ALL you are doing is stimulating your genitals to orgasm -- then, I think it's like any other "pleasure centres of the brain" vice. Don't overdo it to the point of addiction. Certainly don't do it to the extent that it's more important to you than your relationship with God.

Just substitute masturbation for alcohol and review any good "Are you an alcoholic?" questionnaire if you get worried about yourself.  If you decide you have a problem, quit cold turkey.  "I wish I was a person who could just do this once in a while, but I can't so I have to just stop. Period." 

What I call The Cigarette Scale since quitting smoking cigarettes was the toughest one for me. 

As to "looks at a picture". My opinion (which is at extreme variance from the society in which I live): the only person you can legitimately see naked is your spouse whom you have married in the sight of God (i.e. a Church, Synagogue or Mosque wedding) (I note the quotes you put around 'partner').  "Don't go there" is my personal rule of thumb.

Thanks, again, for your letter, William!  Although I wouldn't put this on my list of Impossible Things, you're certainly welcome to put it on yours.

Impossible Thing #14

Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast #14:
"Disagreeing with any of these statements makes you anti-woman and/or a misogynist."

DAVE SIM:
What I'm alluding to here is the Feminist Theocracy's impulse towards "the one right way to think."  The Impossible Things are far too intricate for that:  there are just too many ways of thinking about the various subjects to rule anything "out of order" (I think) -- let alone ruling EVERYTHING out of order that doesn't conform to Feminist Theocracy thinking.

And, yes, in our society, thinking that way makes me a misogynist.  Which is why I don't go out in public.

Impossible Thing #13

Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast #13:
A man's opinions on how to rear and/or raise a child are invalid because he is not the child's mother. However, his financial obligation is greater because no woman gets pregnant by herself. 

DAVE SIM:
It's hard to explain these things concisely because so many things are upside down in our society.

The problem is divorce has gone from a religious thing to a societal thing, so The State is now in control.  Where The State intervenes in human affairs, it needs (presumably) to do so on the basis of Equality.  Everyone has to be Equal before The Law.  Which is not what we're doing.  A baseball player's ex-wife is worth $3 million dollars, the clerk's ex-wife is worth $40K (or whatever).

What we are doing is incentivizing whoredom and whore-mongering: gold-digging by women and women-as-chattal by men.  If, instead, we had a fixed settlement rate for EVERYONE based on jurisdiction (as a 24/7 wife and mother this is what it costs to keep you alive in this jurisdiction, so this is what you get in the event of divorce)  we'd be removing those corruptions as a core reality in our society and getting back to something sensible: marrying for love, security, compatability.

If you only got the same "going-away presents" whether you were a baseball player's ex-wife or a clerk's wife, there would be no reason to have "going-away presents" as even an unconscious motivation in marrying and women would, I think, make better choices.  It would also mean marriages would endure longer because being a GOOD wife would be more -- literally! -- rewarding than being an EX-wife.

Likewise if you only got "going-away presents" if you were a 24/7 wife and mother.  Our concern as a society is -- or should be -- "providing for the provider" with 24/7 wives and mothers as the top priority.  As distinct from "nanny enablers", part-time mother-hobbyists, the wives of househusbands, and "opposite sex roommates".  Equal Before The Law suggests that everyone is expected to fend for him and/or her self.  The State intervening in that should ALWAYS be exceptional and should ALWAYS be "blind justice".  Anything else is institutionalized Inequality.

Impossible Thing #12

Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast #12:
An airline stewardess who earned $20,000 a year at the time that she married a baseball player earning $6 million a year is entitled, in the event of a divorce, to $3 million for each year of the marriage and probably more. 

DAVE SIM:
I tend to separate these situations into "wife and mother" and "feminist" categories.

In the event that the former stewardess became a 24/7 wife to the ballplayer and mother to his children, then I think she needs to be provided for in the event of a divorce in a manner comparable to child support as I envision it: that is, child support should be a fixed amount of money that it costs to rear a child in a specific geographic jurisdiction and alimony for 24/7 wives and mothers should be a fixed amount in a specific geographic jurisdiction (i.e. more in New York City than in Smalltown, Iowa). Otherwise you put The State in the untenable situation of establishing the $ value of children.  The baseball player's children are worth $30,000 a month and the garbageman's children are worth $1,000 a month.  We DO that, as a society, but I think it's wrong.

If the stewardess kept working -- that is, she was a feminist -- then I think the roommate rule makes sense.  She can enjoy being in a more affluent context as long as it lasts and then go back to the life she had when it comes to an end. You don't pay alimony to a roommate when they move out.

I also think you need to have a "nanny rule":  if you hired people to take care of your children then you weren't a 24/7 wife and mother. You were a roommate.

To reiterate the underpinnings of all this:  I think women, generally, by nature and inclination are predisposed to be wives and mothers and I think society benefits from "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"and should encourage that by creating a safety net for them not enjoyed by non-wives and non-mothers and "nanny enablers".  The further we get from that, the worse society gets, I think. And we're hurtling away from that in the opposite direction.    

Impossible Thing #11

Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast #11:

Only in a society which maintains a level of 95% of alimony and child support being paid by men to women can men and women be considered as equals. 

DAVE SIM:
Hi Erick!  The 2+2=4 on this one, for me, is that if we lived in a society with actual Gender Equality, no one would pay alimony to anyone.  In the same sense that if you have a roommate and they decide to move out, you don't go to court to figure out who should pay what to whom.  You go your way, I go my way, goodbye. Period.

You can't make the genders equal in these areas.  Men pay alimony to women disproportionately because most women are less well equipped to provide for themselves than are men.  The easiest way to disprove that thesis is by eliminating alimony.  If the Genders were Equal, alimony would be an insult. "How dare you imply that I can't provide for myself!" The genders aren't equal which is why alimony exists and involves such astronomical sums of money going from "male" to "female".

Child support is a different thing: each jurisdiction needs, I think, to have a legal fixed cost established of what is needed to rear a child and that needs to be paid.  But, it needs to be a FIXED cost, otherwise you're enabling a class system that establishes that Child A gets $30,000 a month and Child B gets $4,000 a month.  "This is how much it costs to rear a child". That's how much gets paid.

The exception, to me, would be alimony paid to wives and mothers.  If she was your wife and the mother of your children and that was WHO she was and WHAT she did, 24/7, then, yes, alimony needs to be paid and in a sufficient amount to maintain the life that she had, even if it impoverishes the divorcing husband and father.  Whatever flexibility you attached to that would, I think, have to be considerably (considerably!) less flexible based on the wife and mother's age.  The older she is, the less likely she is going to be able to provide for herself and the less likely she is to remarry.  So, yes, in that case alimony should, in my opinion, be "for life".

Getting Riel With Chester Brown: Postscript

Getting Riel

Chester Brown discusses his graphic novel, Louis Riel, with Dave Sim

Part One | Part Two | Part Three

Postscript

Mary Wept Over The Feet Of Jesus

by Chester Brown

(Drawn & Quarterly, 2016)

DAVE SIM:
(from comments posted on AMOC, 19 April 2016)

There was a full-page article/review of Chester [Brown]'s new book [Mary Wept Over The Feet Of Jesus] in the NATIONAL POST that I was going to make reference to at some point, at the end of the first column of which David Berry announced that Chester is the ONLY person to do religious commentary in a comic book. But then, I just thought, Why bother? I already know how the discussion is going to go on AMOC. Chester Brown GOOD Dave Sim EVIL as opposed to the tenor of the article: Chester Brown GOOD Dave Sim NON-EXISTENT.

Yes I do think that demonic possession exists and that it's the same as it's been since Biblical times, "we"'ve just decided to call it by other names. It's particularly noticeable for someone like myself who prays five times a day, reads Scripture aloud and fasts most days (and 24 hours on Sunday). For ME, that's just basic self-protection. It's pretty apparent what a complete LACK of self-protection looks like. I definitely don't look at people who don't protect themselves and go "Wow! They're so carefree and happy! I must be seriously deluded!"

There comes a point where you just accept that you're not getting a fair hearing and that you won't get a fair hearing in a world where a major cartooning presence like Chester Brown is, basically, saying that Jesus agrees with him that prostitution is a good thing. Canada has certainly opted for Chester Brown's view of prostitution THAT isn't considered misogynistic or... anything pejorative. 

I think two things worth pointing out: 1) Chester, according to Joe Matt, mischaracterized Joe's disapproval of Chester's whore-mongering as "Joe is too cheap to pay for a prostitute". That may be true, but in all of the conversations that Joe and Chester and I had, Joe's objections were always on moral grounds. Chester did the same thing with me: mischaracterizing my disapproval as being "Dave doesn't believe that women should have jobs." [Interview: A John's Gospel, TCJ.com, 9 May 2011] I definitely don't believe that 86% of women working outside the home is a sensible... or sustainable... percentage but -- like Joe Matt -- I just think that prostitution is morally wrong. And that's certainly what I always said to Chester. "You CAN'T believe that prostitution is harmless or, even worse, beneficial." He definitely did. I would clip and mail articles to him about prostitution when they appeared in the NATIONAL POST -- pro and con -- because I wanted to help with his research. What he did with it was up to him.  

The 2) thing is that Chester is definitely one of the most -- if not THE most -- unique whore-mongers on the planet, as far as I'm concerned. I infer from the reviews and commentaries on PAYING FOR IT that people sent to me that Chester is continuing in his relationship (or "relationship" or Relationship) with his favourite prostitute and that they have now become virtually an old, settled, married couple.

I know at the time that Chester and I were hanging out that she would bake him cookies for Christmas, so it isn't a COMPLETELY one-sided thing.

Personally, I wouldn't be wanting to defend that on Judgement Day, but I'll be very interested to see how that does "shake out" on Judgement Day.

And I can certainly admire Chester for his advocacy (as I understand it): that if more men treated prostitutes the way they do a girlfriend or a wife that they cherish -- as Chester definitely cherished and cherishes his favourite prostitute -- the world in general and the world of prostitution specifically would probably be improved. Or be made less unhappy (not necessarily the same thing).

I don't agree and, as far as I know, Joe Matt doesn't agree, but there you go.

Impossible Thing #10

Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast #10:

Having ensured that there is no environment for men where women don't belong (see no.6) it is important to have zero tolerance of any expression or action which any woman might regard as sexist to ensure greater freedom for everyone. 

DAVE SIM:
Okay. 2+2=4.  For most of our civilization's history, Work Outside the Home Jobs belonged to men and Work Inside the Home Jobs belonged to women (with the notable exceptions of nursing and teaching and secretarial jobs).

It certainly takes no shortage of chutzpah for the Feminist Theocracy to not only decide that AT LEAST 50% of all Outside the Home jobs belong to them, but -- having moved in -- that they want to dictate terms on what is approved of and disapproved  behaviour and conduct in the environment they invaded.  I say this with no small affection and much wry amusement (which I think is the general masculine reaction: very much "You couldn't make that up").

I do think it's getting out of hand which is what happens when you let wry amusement and chivalry override both common sense and "I think I know where this is going."

The Feminist Theocracy usually signals a major bloodbath by changing the name of whatever it is where the bloodbath is going to occur.  In this case, changing "Personnel Director" to "Human Resources Director".  I wondered aloud to Sandeep about how many "HRD's" are women and, evidently, he found an online statistic that it's 93%.  No big surprise.

I think we all know the difference between a Personnel Director -- someone who finds the right person for the right job -- and a Human Resources Director -- who is as much concerned with being an Orwellian Thought Police tyrant as trying to find the right person for a job.

It's really unhealthy but as long as 93% of them are women, I think that's going to be a given.

And as long as we live in a Feminist Theocracy, that isn't going to change.

Impossible Thing #9

Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast #9:

"Affirmative action at colleges and universities needs to be maintained now that more women than men are being enrolled, in order to keep from giving men an unfair advantage academically."

DAVE SIM:

Hi, Erick!

Okay, 2+2=4 on this one:  there are more women than men being enrolled at university.  Considerably more compared to when I wrote "Tangent" 14 years ago.

It's not really a "guy thing" to complain about that. It is what it is. Numerical parity is "Feminist Theocracy Dogma" but only until women achieve numerical superiority and then -- numerical parity? What's that?  It's nothing with which men who have a clear-eyed view of the Feminist Theocracy find surprising.  All's fair in love and war.  Men -- myself included -- tend to be completely philosophical about it.  Someone told me that Manulife Insurance downtown here is 80% women employees.  "Oh yeah? How about that."  Good for them!  

Of greater concern and a development which has only emerged in the last few years is the fact that most universities -- as they are coming under complete control by the Feminist Theocracy -- are proving EXTREMELY resistant to tolerating even the IDEA of organized expressions of "men's rights" for the (to me) obvious reason that the Feminist Theocracy doesn't believe that men HAVE rights:  that men's rights are seen by the Feminist Theocracy as merely a tactical means of eroding or reversing women's rights.

It's a perfect example of the Feminist Theocracy's core dogma that anything that doesn't directly benefit feminists has to be viewed as a threat...and eradicated.

They're just getting rolling on that one but, as with everything else they tackle, they're like a hot knife through butter.

As I say, I think men (as distinct from male feminists), myself included, are completely philosophical about that.  Anything the Feminist Theocracy takes over becomes the Feminist Theocracy's problem to solve. The more butter the hot knife goes through and the less masculine participation it allows for, the more the resultant mess becomes inescapably the Feminist Theocracy's to wear.

Universities becoming Potemkin villages of political correctness -- instead of environments interested in the free interchange of ideas which is what universities are SUPPOSED to be, theoretically -- definitely tells us which way we're going as a society.  And that direction is not good.    

 

Impossible Thing #8

Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast #8:

It is important to have lower physical standards for women firepersons and women policepersons so that, one day, half of all firepersons and policepersons will be women, thus more effectively protecting the safety of the public. 

DAVE SIM:
Hi Erick!  #8, to me, is another 2+2=4 no-brainer.
Where the safety of the public is concerned, you have to set VERY HIGH standards and stick with them.  If anything, raising them steadily.  I think it's WONDERFUL ANY time a woman is able to attain to the highest possible physical standards as ALL firefighters and ALL police officers must do -- and they should AUTOMATICALLY be accepted and their achievement CELEBRATED when they do.

But eroding those standards -- having higher standards for men and lower standards for women, which is the status quo in our Feminist Theocracy -- in the interests of numerical parity is LUNACY.

Period

Impossible Thing #7

Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast #7:

Because it involves taking jobs away from men and giving them to women, affirmative action makes for a fairer and more just society. 

DAVE SIM:

Hi Erick!
I'm afraid on this one, I got lured into framing it in Feminist Theocracy terms -- "Affirmative Action" -- which is never going to work since all their terminology is tailored to impede rather than convey meaning.  So let me reframe it this way:

Men work OUTSIDE the home.  Women work INSIDE the home. (so "outside the home" jobs "belong" to men: you can change that perception and reality and we have changed that perception and reality but I think all that did was to put women at a remove from what they are GENUINELY most interested in: family and home.)

When you have Men OUTSIDE and Women INSIDE as the societal standard, the genders don't interfere with each other.  They have their own jurisdictional areas best aligned with their genuine interests and aptitudes.

See, instead of talking about "fair and equitable" -- which I don't think applies except to hardcore feminists who think only in terms "numerical parity" -- I think it's more important -- because we're talking about women, that is, emotion-based beings -- to talk about happiness.

What we had prior to 1970 made MORE women GENERALLY happier.  Marriage as a near-universal condition, maternity as the norm, home and home-making as the pivot point around which everything else revolved. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."

Women worked outside the home, sure, but usually only UNHAPPY women, aged tomboys, Old Maids, whatever you want to call them.  Misery does, indeed, love company.  If you've sacrificed your chance at an enduring family and home core to your life -- particularly if you've reached or are approaching your "best before" date for courtship, engagement, marriage and childbirth -- as so many have -- it's going to become a critical thing for you to persuade young women who still have a chance to follow your course instead.

It just doesn't seem possible to me that "home and family" are portrayed interests and were for thousands of years and what women are ACTUALLY interested in and always have been interested in is in being men.  That's certainly what our society LOOKS like with 86% of women out in the workforce.

But, personally, I'm convinced that THAT'S the portrayal.

And as long as MOST women opt for portrayal over reality, we're going to live in a portrayal world instead of a reality world.

  

Wednesday's Impossible Thing: #6

Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast #6:

It is absolutely necessary for women to be allowed to join or participate fully in any gathering place for men, just as it is absolutely necessary that there be women only environments from which men are excluded.

DAVE SIM:

Hi Erick!

I've decided to do one of these a week: Wednesday!  I'll leave it up to Tim W if he wants to keep "Impossible Things" commentaries from other people going after that.

#6 - I think virtually ALL (i.e. 95% or better) men and women are fine with men meeting with men and women meeting with women absent the other gender; sports clubs exclusively for men and sports clubs exclusively for women, etc. -- and take it as a given that INDIVIDUALS are the ones best suited to choose their personal circumstances for themselves.

I really think feminists are the only people who have a problem with it because of their misandry mind-set.  They infer that the only reason men would want to be together without women being there is because any meeting that doesn't INCLUDE women is directed AGAINST women.  Another instance of the most aggressive women intimidating normal women.

Definitely up until 1970, it was taken as a given that you would have sewing bees for women, lodge meetings for men, etc. etc. Everyone would have found it inconceivable that it could be considered an issue.  Husbands and wives need the time away from each other and time with others of their own gender.

I think the only explanation for thinking otherwise is misandry and paranoia.

Impossible Thing #5

DAVE SIM:
So the 2+2=4 I would suggest as apparent in #5 hinges on "equal partnership":  Up to 1970, partnership -- marriage -- was a universal constant.  Virtually all woman got lifelong husbands and stable marriages which I think is the societal ideal.  So I think the Natural organizing principle -- men working outside the home and women working inside the home -- proved itself.

The criteria being not just equality -- which we have now -- but universality, which we don't.

This will be my last post on Erick's IMPOSSIBLE THINGS until after the launch of The Cerebus Oversize Project, where I'll pick up with #6. Sincere apologies to you, Erick!  I appreciate your patience. 

IMPOSSIBLE THING 3/18/16

Impossible Things To Believe Before Breakfast:
5. A car with two steering wheels, two gas pedals and two brakes drives more efficiently than a car with one steering wheel, one gas pedal and one brake which is why marriage should always be an equal partnership.

DAVE SIM:

Hi Erick!

Been working since 12:30 am with a 2 hr nap this afternoon, so this is going to be extremely truncated.

Two steering wheels, two brakes, etc. sounds like a good idea but I think it's a recipe for disaster in the domestic sphere.  Originating in the fact that men are naturally more hunter-gatherers and women "nesters".  The problem comes in because the average man's standards for domestic work are very low.  The Off-White House is "not filthy" but it is not clean to the point of a woman's standards.  Women do more housework because their standards are much, much higher.  Something that isn't 97% clean for a woman is seen by them as potentially unhealthy. Which it is.

The IDEAL is nice: we'll BOTH do the housework.  For a woman, a man's standards of "not filthy" just look like slacking, not caring, freeloading.  We're supposed to BOTH be doing the housework.  The house is going to look FILTHY to you long before it looks filthy to me so you'll clean it before I do.  And resent it if I don't.

I think we will get back to what worked up to 1970 and which still works in much of the world: women in charge of the domestic environment and men in charge of "resources" or hunting gathering or whatever you want to call it.  If it's how things are done GENERALLY in nature, then you are going to see that in the human sphere.  Unless ideologues take over and decide to make the human sphere different from nature. The Feminist Theocracy wants the natural split eradicated, but that's purely self-interest, I think.  For a "nester" to force herself to NOT be a "nester" and be a hunter-gatherer is cutting off her nose to spite her face.  Which is easy for a masculine woman or a woman who wants to BE masculine.  Better a pure Feminist Theocracy face with no nose on it than an "oppressed, subjugated" nose making a mockery of her Feminist Theocracy face.  Women who accept that a nose and a face go together are going to be happier in the long run, GENERALLY.

"You wait 'til your father gets home".  The other thing that used to exist was masculine discipline and corporal punishment. "A mother's heart contains nothing but love".  I saw that on a sampler once.  Very true!  That's why they're lousy disciplinarians GENERALLY.  They want their children to love them and they want their children to be happy 24/7.  A spanked child is an unhappy child.  Temporary unhappiness is important if an important lesson needs to be learned.   Men are better able to suck it up in that area than women are, GENERALLY.

HOWEVER, because we live in a Feminist Theocracy, husbands and fathers have no rights.  As long as you're zigging when she's zigging and zagging when she's zagging two steering wheels are fine.  If you try to start steering the domestic sphere in a different direction from the one she wants, in how your children are reared, in particular, you are in danger of finding out that your rights got legislated away decades ago in Family Law.  She owns your children, lock, stock and barrel.

I went through the custody battle for Craig Miller's daughter from the sidelines.  I kept trying to tell him, Craig, you're going to lose (I held out a slim hope that because it was a Texas vs. Ohio thing, with Craig in Texas -- well, I mean, okay.  TEXAS.  Father's rights, right? -- No sir).  Take what she gives you because that's ALL you're going to get and be prepared to say goodbye to your daughter permanently.

Getting married and having a child when you don't understand HOW much of a Feminist Theocracy we live in.  Well, I feel for you, in a way (Apart from the fact that I'm not a "feel" kind of guy).  But you should have recognized the nutcracker you were putting yourself into.  A father is going to LOVE his kid(s).  Definite CAPS.  You will be deeply, deeply connected.  But, you will not have a legal leg to stand on. Even when the courts find in your favour, they will not ENFORCE that decision.  A Feminist Theocracy mother is a steamroller and she WILL flatten you if she's decided that you are in the way.  NO court will go toe-to-toe with a mother and TELL her to do something.  SHE will do what she thinks is best.  Period.  And the court WILL get out of her way.

Craig and his wife, like all couples, started out with the best will in the world to have a completely equal "two steering wheel two brake car".  It's nice when it works.  But when it doesn't work, it's a bloodbath.

When I visit the 5K (5 kids) Kitchens, I spend most of my time in the kitchen, because I want to visit with Mike AND Erika.  If I sit in the living room or the dining room, I'll see Erika for 20 seconds until she thinks of something ELSE she needs to do in the kitchen.  I stay out of the way.  But it's wonderful to watch.  It's like a ballet.  A woman who IS just who she is:  a wife and mother, given over wholly to what I'm pretty sure are MOST women's natural interests and enjoyments.

No way of proving that "MOST",  and -- 46 years into the Feminist Theocracy -- I'll never live to see it reassert itself, but I'm pretty sure it will.

Okay.  Prayer time.

Impossible Things #3 and 4

Impossible Things To Believe Before Breakfast:
3. A woman's doctor has more of a valid claim to participate in the decision to abort a fetus than does the father of that fetus.
4. So long as a woman makes a decision after consulting with her doctor, she is incapable of making an unethical choice.

DAVE SIM:

Hi Erick!

Trying to keep this to a 2+2=4 self-evident level:

2+2=4:  Every baby that has been born, is being born and ever will be born is formed of 23 male-originating chromosomes and 23 female-originating chromosomes.  There is no such thing as a 19-27 or 26-20 baby.  Every baby is a 50-50 proposition between the two genders. No baby can be created, has been created or ever will be created without a FULL 50% contribution from a man.

2+2=4: As per THE LAST DAY [p.32], we know for a fact that a baby constructs ITSELF in the womb past the four-cell division stage.  It is not part of its mother's body.  The best description of it is, as I described it, a Gruesome Parasite.  It knows what it needs from the mother's body to generate its physical self according to its autonomous, "on-board" internal 23-23 roadmap and it TAKES those things.  Its mother doesn't GIVE anything to it.  It TAKES it.  It's programmed to do that.

2+2=4: If it was part of its mother's body the baby would be a replicant.  If there are incidents of a mother reproducing herself in exact form, they are anecdotal anomalies on a cosmological scale.  The fact that every baby that has been born, is being born and ever will be born is NOT a replicant, the fact that every child, ever born, that is being born or ever will be born -- even (or, in this case, I should say ESPECIALLY) to the same parents -- is an entirely UNIQUE being in its physical attributes is proof positive that EVERY baby is a unique 23-23 "program" combining the father's unique one-time-only 23 chromosomes with the mother's unique one-time-only 23 chromosomes.

2+2=4:  If the ACTUAL goal in our society WAS equality between the genders then Equal Reproduction Rights would be foundational and self-evident within our legal system. My unique "one-time-only" 23 chromosomes gives me a 50% stake in THAT SPECIFIC baby if I impregnated you.  Your 23 chromosomes give you a 50% stake in THAT SPECIFIC baby by virtue of it growing out of your egg.  There is no sign of this in our laws in the G7 countries.

[What is required is not only Equal Reproduction Rights but Equal Reproduction Responsibilities.  At the bare minimum medical histories being provided.  It is ludicrous to have even the concept of "an anonymous sperm donor" when the first question any doctor is going to ask you is, "Is there a history of this in your family?" He's not an anonymous sperm donor, he's a father.  Whomever you are discussing he is 50% responsible for that person's existence and any RATIONAL LAW will reflect that.]

[it was a nice Feminist Theocracy fallacy to think that fathers could just be "wished away" through anonymous sperm donorship and adoption.  What we've found instead is that EVERYONE understands the 23-23 construct EXCEPT feminists.  Everyone wants to know who their mother AND father are.  Because they know that's who THEY are: 50-50]

2+2=4: The fact that we don't have Equal Reproduction Rights for the father and mother is what tells us that we are not living in a democracy interested in enshrining Equality between the genders in its laws. We are living in a Feminist Theocracy which will not countenance nor consider nor discuss anything short of absolute ownership and control of babies and reproduction by women.  Period.  Full stop.

That's where we are and that is, in my view, fundamentally, inescapably, self-evidently WRONG.

A MOMENT OF FEMINISM

DAVE SIM:
Just a quick note that I promised to address Erick on the 15 IMPOSSIBLE THINGS because he actually posted -- according to Tim W, the first one to ever do so -- his 15 replies.

This isn't MY website.  It's Tim W's.  If he wants to do this again:  post Barry Deutsch's 15 RESPONSES and then Damian's 15 RESPONSES and have me reply to them -- and anyone else who wants to post 15 RESPONSES, I have no problem with that.  But, at some point I think he should change the name of the site to A MOMENT OF FEMINISM.

Just saying.