Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: #293 (minor "Why Canada Slept" spoilers)

Expand Messages
  • Larry
    ... No, I mean he s back to feminists and homosesualists. Twenty-nine pages of it. But really, I strongly recommend reading this installment. If you don t
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 31 8:52 PM
      --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@y...> wrote:
      >
      > > And in case
      > > anyone is glad he's
      > > gone beyond complaining about feminists and
      > > "homosexualists" and is
      > > only interested in the Middle East and God now--no
      > > such luck. Heh.
      > >
      > So do you mean he's only talking about the Middle East
      > and God?

      No, I mean he's back to feminists and homosesualists. Twenty-nine
      pages of it.

      But really, I strongly recommend reading this installment. If you
      don't have the time or inclination to read 29 pages, skip to the
      last seven (where the heading "ENDINGS" is). He kind of sums up
      exactly what he's been trying to accomplish all these years writing
      about feminism. If he had been this clear about what his intentions
      were (and were not) before, I think there would have been fewer
      misunderstandings on the part of his audience--those who are NOT
      just knee-jerk slamming him, that is.

      F'r instance, did you ever think you'd hear (ok, read) Dave say that
      keeping women completely out of the workforce until WWII was a BAD
      thing, analogous to the color barrier in Major League Baseball until
      1947? Well, you will if you read this issue. ;)

      - Larry Hart
    • Chris W
      ... Does he explain about the voting thing? I mean, falling into Sim s views of women, I can understand his being opposed to their getting the vote, but that
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 1, 2003
        --- Larry <larrytheillini@...> wrote:
        > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W
        > <show_me68508@y...> wrote:
        > >
        > > > And in case
        > > > anyone is glad he's
        > > > gone beyond complaining about feminists and
        > > > "homosexualists" and is
        > > > only interested in the Middle East and God
        > now--no
        > > > such luck. Heh.
        > > >
        > > So do you mean he's only talking about the Middle
        > East
        > > and God?
        >
        > No, I mean he's back to feminists and
        > homosesualists. Twenty-nine
        > pages of it.
        >
        > But really, I strongly recommend reading this
        > installment. If you
        > don't have the time or inclination to read 29 pages,
        > skip to the
        > last seven (where the heading "ENDINGS" is). He
        > kind of sums up
        > exactly what he's been trying to accomplish all
        > these years writing
        > about feminism. If he had been this clear about
        > what his intentions
        > were (and were not) before, I think there would have
        > been fewer
        > misunderstandings on the part of his audience--those
        > who are NOT
        > just knee-jerk slamming him, that is.
        >
        > F'r instance, did you ever think you'd hear (ok,
        > read) Dave say that
        > keeping women completely out of the workforce until
        > WWII was a BAD
        > thing, analogous to the color barrier in Major
        > League Baseball until
        > 1947? Well, you will if you read this issue. ;)
        >
        > - Larry Hart
        >
        >
        >
        Does he explain about the voting thing? I mean,
        falling into Sim's views of women, I can understand
        his being opposed to their getting the vote, but that
        is unquestionably contrary to the basics of democracy,
        which he also supports.

        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
      • Chris W
        ... How can we have a happy Labor Day when Aunt Tooney s ashes are sitting on top of the mantle. Not even a barbecue can cheer me up. :(
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 1, 2003
          --- Tony Palermo <tippongo@...> wrote:
          > --- Larry <larrytheillini@...> wrote:
          > > I'm making an uncharacteristic Saturday night
          > visit
          > > "here" to let
          > > y'all know that I received my #293 in the mail
          > > today. I hope that
          > > means it will be in stores next week, although
          > > because of Labor Day,
          > > that certainly won't be until THURSDAY instead of
          > > the usual
          > > Wednesday.
          >
          > Dang.
          > My copy didn't arrive Saturday.
          > Oh well.
          >
          >
          > >
          > > Whenever you do get your copy, you'll notice its
          > > unusual thickness.
          > > The final installment of "Why Canada Slept" clocks
          > > in at something
          > > like 29 pages (hard to count quickly without page
          > > numbers). That's
          > > practically "Tangent-and-a-half". And in case
          > > anyone is glad he's
          > > gone beyond complaining about feminists and
          > > "homosexualists" and is
          > > only interested in the Middle East and God now--no
          > > such luck. Heh.
          >
          >
          > Dang it, again.
          >
          > >
          > > Anyway, happy Labor Day, fellow Americans. "See"
          > > you Tuesday.
          > >
          > > - Larry Hart
          >
          > To you as well...and to all.
          > T
          >
          >
          How can we have a happy Labor Day when Aunt Tooney's
          ashes are sitting on top of the mantle. Not even a
          barbecue can cheer me up. :(

          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
          http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
        • Larry
          ... No, he really doesn t go into that. He spends a lot of time talking specifically about the workplace. He thinks women should be ALLOWED to compete for
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 2, 2003
            --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@y...> wrote:
            >
            > >
            > Does he explain about the voting thing? I mean,
            > falling into Sim's views of women, I can understand
            > his being opposed to their getting the vote, but that
            > is unquestionably contrary to the basics of democracy,
            > which he also supports.
            >

            No, he really doesn't go into that. He spends a lot of time talking
            specifically about the workplace. He thinks women should be ALLOWED
            to compete for jobs, but that the job specifications shouldn't
            be "dumbed down" so that women must SUCCEED at the expense of
            actually getting the work done. He also discusses the practices of
            making workplaces so "family friendly" that employees who spend most
            of their day arranging caregiving or picking up their kids from
            school cannot be replaced by ones who would actually work the 8 to 12
            hour days.

            What he doesn't "explain" that I think needs explaining is if (and he
            posits this specifically) most women are ONLY suited to be wives and
            mothers and if (he doesn't say this here, but he's certainly said it
            before) there are too many people on earth, so rampant reproduction
            is a bad idea, then just what are the unemployable 50% of the
            population supposed to do to survive? I mean, I'm not saying that
            what we've got today is the best solution, but the question can't be
            ignored either.

            He also declares Tangent a "victory", seeing as how no woman has yet
            refuted it. Again, I'd strongly suggest reading this installment
            even if you haven't read most of the text stuff--and if you don't
            want to read 29 pages, go to the "ENDINGS" section, approximately
            seven pages from the back and read that.

            - Larry Hart
          • flagator@gate.net
            Spoilers for Why Canada Slept ? Doesn t spoilers imply that someone, somewhere, cares what it contains? -- Steven Otte flagator@gate.net
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 2, 2003
              "Spoilers" for "Why Canada Slept"?

              Doesn't "spoilers" imply that someone, somewhere, cares what it contains?

              --
              Steven Otte
              flagator@...
            • Larry
              ... Point being, it contained spoilers ONLY for the back of the book (which I assumed would bother no one) and not for the front of the book (which I ll leave
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 2, 2003
                --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, flagator@g... wrote:
                > "Spoilers" for "Why Canada Slept"?
                >
                > Doesn't "spoilers" imply that someone, somewhere,
                > cares what it contains?
                >

                Point being, it contained spoilers ONLY for the back of the book
                (which I assumed would bother no one) and not for the front of the
                book (which I'll leave alone until it hits stores).

                Heh.

                - Larry Hart
              • matt levin
                [ Spoilers for Why Canada Slept ? Doesn t spoilers imply that someone, somewhere, cares what it contains? Steven Otte flagator@gate.net] OK, now THAT is
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 2, 2003
                   
                  ["Spoilers" for "Why Canada Slept"?
                  Doesn't "spoilers" imply that someone, somewhere, cares what it contains?
                  Steven Otte
                  flagator@...]

                  OK, now THAT is funny!

                  thanks Steven!

                  Matt


                • Chris W
                  ... I recall a letter column where he said his idea was to just give everybody a basic income -- presumably whatever food/housing/simple entertainment cost --
                  Message 8 of 14 , Sep 3, 2003
                    --- Larry <larrytheillini@...> wrote:
                    > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W
                    > <show_me68508@y...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > Does he explain about the voting thing? I mean,
                    > > falling into Sim's views of women, I can
                    > understand
                    > > his being opposed to their getting the vote, but
                    > that
                    > > is unquestionably contrary to the basics of
                    > democracy,
                    > > which he also supports.
                    > >
                    >
                    > No, he really doesn't go into that. He spends a lot
                    > of time talking
                    > specifically about the workplace. He thinks women
                    > should be ALLOWED
                    > to compete for jobs, but that the job specifications
                    > shouldn't
                    > be "dumbed down" so that women must SUCCEED at the
                    > expense of
                    > actually getting the work done. He also discusses
                    > the practices of
                    > making workplaces so "family friendly" that
                    > employees who spend most
                    > of their day arranging caregiving or picking up
                    > their kids from
                    > school cannot be replaced by ones who would actually
                    > work the 8 to 12
                    > hour days.
                    >
                    > What he doesn't "explain" that I think needs
                    > explaining is if (and he
                    > posits this specifically) most women are ONLY suited
                    > to be wives and
                    > mothers and if (he doesn't say this here, but he's
                    > certainly said it
                    > before) there are too many people on earth, so
                    > rampant reproduction
                    > is a bad idea, then just what are the unemployable
                    > 50% of the
                    > population supposed to do to survive? I mean, I'm
                    > not saying that
                    > what we've got today is the best solution, but the
                    > question can't be
                    > ignored either.
                    >

                    I recall a letter column where he said his idea was to
                    just give everybody a basic income -- presumably
                    whatever food/housing/simple entertainment cost -- and
                    those who want more can work for it. I don't recall
                    the number, but I 'think' #186 printed an in-depth
                    letter from someone responding to Sim's comments, so
                    it would probably be a couple issues before that.

                    I don't know how such a thing would be done, but I
                    have long thought [and correctly or not, assume his
                    point is] that X% of people are sheep. They will do
                    what they're told, they will believe what they're
                    told, and they won't exert any unecessary effort even
                    for their own behalf. And the world's problems would
                    become much smaller and more managable if those people
                    who aspire to be sheep are given a place to graze.
                    Any of them who want to stand on their hind legs will
                    be able to see there's more to the world than the
                    sheepfold and see how easy it is to climb over the
                    fence.

                    As I say, how would such a thing be done? Lol,
                    probably through God-inspired charity of the rich
                    towards the rest of the world. The alternative is
                    violent revolution, or means of like immorality.

                    > He also declares Tangent a "victory", seeing as how
                    > no woman has yet
                    > refuted it. Again, I'd strongly suggest reading
                    > this installment
                    > even if you haven't read most of the text stuff--and
                    > if you don't
                    > want to read 29 pages, go to the "ENDINGS" section,
                    > approximately
                    > seven pages from the back and read that.
                    >
                    > - Larry Hart
                    >
                    Hey, I love those essays. My least favorite parts of
                    "Why My Islam Slept" are the ones where he's just
                    quoting other people. When 'Tangent' came out, I
                    snuck out of work early to drive to the comic store,
                    and came back and read it on the clock. Fun! :D

                    Incidentally Larry, the issue following is supposed to
                    have an Aardvark Comment, so you might think of
                    sending Sim a note reminding him of his promise, what,
                    two years ago? that the next letter column would print
                    one of your letters. ;-)

                    __________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
                    http://sbc.yahoo.com
                  • Larry
                    ... That s not entirely a bad idea, but it s still a socialistic one (it still requires those acutally PRODUCING wealth to subsidize those who don t). Maybe
                    Message 9 of 14 , Sep 5, 2003
                      --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > What he doesn't "explain" that I think needs
                      > > explaining is if (and he
                      > > posits this specifically) most women are ONLY suited
                      > > to be wives and
                      > > mothers and if (he doesn't say this here, but he's
                      > > certainly said it
                      > > before) there are too many people on earth, so
                      > > rampant reproduction
                      > > is a bad idea, then just what are the unemployable
                      > > 50% of the
                      > > population supposed to do to survive? I mean, I'm
                      > > not saying that
                      > > what we've got today is the best solution, but the
                      > > question can't be
                      > > ignored either.
                      > >
                      >
                      > I recall a letter column where he said his idea was to
                      > just give everybody a basic income -- presumably
                      > whatever food/housing/simple entertainment cost -- and
                      > those who want more can work for it.
                      >

                      That's not entirely a bad idea, but it's still a socialistic one (it
                      still requires those acutally PRODUCING wealth to subsidize those who
                      don't). Maybe the math works out so it's the best way FOR those
                      producing wealth (as opposed to rampant alimony, massive taxation, or
                      violent revolution), and it may indeed be a good idea, but so may
                      redistributive taxes and socialized medicine. I don't see how one
                      can propose the above and still demonize other methods as being
                      inherently bad on account of being quasi-socialist.


                      > Hey, I love those essays. My least favorite parts of
                      > "Why My Islam Slept" are the ones where he's just
                      > quoting other people. When 'Tangent' came out, I
                      > snuck out of work early to drive to the comic store,
                      > and came back and read it on the clock. Fun! :D
                      >

                      Heh. I didn't sneak out early, but I spent much of that evening
                      (this was before baby) on the couch sipping a drink and
                      reading "Tangent" with my wife nearby watching television, wondering
                      what she was going to think of all this. Fortunately (for me,
                      anyway) she stopped reading the back-of-the-book stuff a long time
                      ago, and ever since the middle of "Rick's Story", she only reads the
                      collected TPBs of Cerebus.

                      > Incidentally Larry, the issue following is supposed to
                      > have an Aardvark Comment, so you might think of
                      > sending Sim a note reminding him of his promise, what,
                      > two years ago? that the next letter column would print
                      > one of your letters. ;-)
                      >

                      I'll bet he prints one without a reminder. I sent him too many
                      during the period for him to have forgotten me. Heh. I'll bet the
                      one he prints is the one in which I said that being the father of a
                      girl now, I can see how TEMPTING it is to insist that she can do
                      anything the boys can do. I specifically said that I had not in fact
                      started BELIEVING or INSISTING ON all of the Impossible Things To
                      Believe--just that I can see the forces that act on parents in that
                      direction. I'm interested in how he "spins" the response.

                      - Larry Hart
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.