>
 |
| Scott Adams: Sometimes dumber than Dilbert’s boss. |
So Scott Adams — the Dilbert guy — has a blog. About a week and a half ago he made the mistake of asking his readers to give him a topic to write about. Well, some MRAs heard about this, and, being MRAs, decided that they would flood his site with comments urging him to write about Men’s Rights. And so he did.
What they got from him wasn’t quite what they hoped. Really, though, it wasn’t what anyone would have hoped. So much so that Adams decided to take his post down, saying that it had gotten “a bit too much attention from outside my normal reading circle.”
Luckily, through the voodoo of Google, we can still see the original post. Adams started out, depressingly enough, by more-or-less agreeing with MRAs on a wide assortment of their pet issues big and small — from men paying more for car insurance to the alleged anti-male bias of the legal system. Much of what he wrote made as little sense as many real MRA rants; even his little jokey asides fell completely flat.
We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?
Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.
Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.
After more or less agreeing that men are getting a raw deal, Adams dismissed the complaints of women upset that women earn less than men; to Adams, this is because they are naturally timid souls who don’t know how to ask for raises.
So far, so not-so-good. But then Adams pulled the old switcheroo on his MRA readers, who up until this point were presumably giddy with excitement.
Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:
Get over it, you bunch of pussies.
Uh oh! Shaming tactic! MRAs love directing vagina-based insults at others — mangina anyone? — but they hate hate hate it when anyone directs a vagina-based insult at them. To be fair, calling someone a pussy is not much of an argument.
But here’s where Adams pulled a sort of double switcheroo. After insulting Men’s Rights activists, he did them one better with a bizarre, brazen misogynistic argument that seemed to have been cribbed from some of the more idiotic comments on the various MGTOW message boards. It turned out that the reason Adams thinks men should “get over it” is that … well, read it for yourself.
The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
What what what?? This is the sort of shit you expect from some low-grade misogynist loser on The Spearhead. But no, this is Scott Adams, internationally famous cartoonist and bestselling author. Instead of trying to explain just what the fuck he means by all this, Adams continued on with a very strange, and strangely sexual, chess metaphor:
How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.
Apparently In Scott Adams’ world, chess players don’t get all their kicks above the waistline, Sunshine.
After a few more paragraphs that, frankly, don’t make any more sense than what I’ve quoted so far, Adams seemed to realize that maybe he shouldn’t have really suggested that women were a bunch of retarded children. But instead of going back and removing that from his post, he dug himself further in with a weird and completely unconvincing denial:
I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people.
As far as I can figure out his weird and convoluted argument, it is this: The world really is unfair to men. But you’ll never win this argument with a women — you know how they are. So keep quiet and maybe … you’ll get to fuck the queen?
No wonder he deleted the post.
Completely off-topic observation: Every time I hear the name Dilbert, the song Dilbar Dil Se Pyare, from the 1971 Bollywood hit Caravan, gets stuck in my head. So let’s see if I can get it stuck in your head:
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>David Futrelle said… "Nick, the fact that women are involved in maintaining patriarchy is rather crucial to understanding what feminists mean by patriarchy; many women actually benefit in various ways from patriarchy." So then why are other women opposed to this 'patriarchy'? Because they're ugly?Because they're fat?Because they think it's oppression having to sexually compete with magazine models? (Oh, the humanity!)Because they think it's mens fault that they become bullimics trying to do so? (Jeeez! You folks can't have ANY accountability!?)Because they think that businesses would keep right on paying men more money for the same work when they could just fire all the dudes and save millions? And let's not forget the big one: Because they think it's a war crime if a man actually has control during sex? (Males are sexually dominant animals throughout most of the animal kingdom. But somehow it's not natural just because a bunch of peach fuzzed sea world attractions with worthless college degrees in humaniteeees, wimminzzz stuudeees, etc. say so?)
>"Well, then I guess there are no feminist laws as the MRA's claim since men are the majority of congress,police and judges that enforce them."Men like Scott Adams are the majority of congress, police and judges that enforce them.And they only do it because they're afraid of loosing their jobs if they don't. So they go along with whatever bullshit speweth forth from female mouth.There ARE feminist laws. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.
>So what you're implying, EvilWhiteMaleEmpire, is that if a woman is unattractive and overweight, her thoughts and desires can be readily dismissed? That she's unworthy of attention or respect? That no idea or argument put forth by an ugly, fat woman could ever have any value because of how she looks?Dude, that's patriarchy right there, staring you in the face.
>Keep typing, evil. Maybe eventually you'll make some sort of sense. Also, where exactly did you (and so many other tiresome internet arguers) get the notion that adding letters to words (humaniteeees, wimminzzz stuudeees) is somehow a stinging insult?
>David, Johnnykaje: The only thing the least bit good about the comics is Ziggy Circus; you know–switching the "punchlines" of the day's Ziggy and the Family Circus. (Assuming your paper carries those abominations.) It usually results in some stranger (or a parrot) calling Ziggy "Mommy" and one of the melon-headed children spouting off about how much it sucks to be them.Absent that, there's always those serial comics that are not actually supposed to be funny but always are: The Phantom, Apartment 3-G, Judge Parker, Mary Worth … Then again, I find MRA arguments hilarious, so perhaps my sense of humor is "off."
>Lady Victoria von Syrus said… "So what you're implying, EvilWhiteMaleEmpire, is that if a woman is unattractive and overweight, her thoughts and desires can be readily dismissed?"If your thoughts and desires are a bunch of selfish entitlement nonsense they most certainly can and should be. I might point out that attractive women have loads of thoughts and desires that should most certainly should be dismissed. (even if it seldom happens) "That she's unworthy of attention or respect?"Your not entitled to attention and respect is earned not learned."That no idea or argument put forth by an ugly, fat woman could ever have any value because of how she looks?"Correct. No idea or argument should be judged by the appearance of the presenter. But that isn't really your point. You point is to say that it's wrong that you should have more difficulty getting folks to agree with your B.S. than an attractive woman does in getting folks to agree with her B.S. "Dude, that's patriarchy right there, staring you in the face." No that's EQUALITY. Patriarchal oppression: Ugly women not being unfairly treated the way attractive women are unfairly treated.
>I was watching the awesome movie "American Psycho" the other night and it kept reminding me of this blog. There's a scene where a bunch of stockbrokers are sitting around making somewhat piggish comments about women, and sociopath protagonist Patrick Bateman, trying to join in on the guy talk, puts a big grin on his face and cheerfully repeats a quote from Ed Gein about wanting to see a pretty girl's head on a stick. The point is that the whole conversation is threaded with a certain hostility toward women, but everyone except Bateman understands the socially acceptable level: bragging about lovin' and leavin' bimbos is okay, fantasizing about murdering them is not.I see that problem in a lot of MRA talk: it's not that their attitudes are fundamentally different than the sexism in mainstream society, it's that they don't have any sense of perspective, context, or tone. Scott Adams seems to be having the same trouble here. Lots of guys joke about letting the little woman have her way, you know how chicks are, ha ha. Only a special few will take it to the logical conclusion of, "Yeah, women are basically retarded children you can have sex with! Amirite, guys?"Oh, Scott Adams. What the hell.
>whatifgirl, on standard MRA "arguments," I've got a few of those addressed in my "dumb things"faq and in some of the "further reading" posts, linked in the sidebar, but I think I will do another post on "brilliant MRA arguments and insults we've never ever heard a bazillion times before."If you (or anyone) have any specific thoughts on some we should include in that, post them below.Although not an argument or insult that we've never ever heard a bazillion times before, I thought that AntZ' screed and "proofs" (including his reponses to rebuttals) about the feminist hate conspiracy regarding use of Ritalin to perform genocide on boys, which appeared in the comments section of David's post on Good Men Project, was quite interesting.
>Because they think it's a war crime if a man actually has control during sex? (Males are sexually dominant animals throughout most of the animal kingdom. But somehow it's not natural just because a bunch of peach fuzzed sea world attractions with worthless college degrees in humaniteeees, wimminzzz stuudeees, etc. say so?)And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call rape culture.
>You know, I hold open doors for men all the time. Only when I do it, I don't call it chivalry, I call it having the decency to not let the door slam in the face of the person behind me. Why is it such a big deal when men hold doors open for women? So, when men aren't getting the majority of degrees, it's a problem with society and the education system, but when women are paid 80 cents to every man's dollar and make up a minority of most higher paying jobs, it's because women just aren't assertive enough? Obvious double standards are obvious.Especially since Scott also makes the case that men can't win an argument with a women. Let me see if I can map this logic out:Women always win arguments against men.Meaning if a woman argued for a pay raise against a male boss, she would win.Women make less money on average than men.Meaning a woman who makes less than a man must not be arguing for it, even though she would win.Because… That would be cheating?@PamAh, yes, AntZ. As a feminist with ADD that takes medication, I found his comments particularly obnoxious and misinformed. I mean, even more misinformed than the usual douchebag that tells me the condition I struggle with daily doesn't exist, and then gets upset when I take offense.
>Because they think it's a war crime if a man actually has control during sex? EvilWhiteMaleEmpire: endorsing and justifying rape. And trying to justify it with the naturalistic fallacy, too. Blergh, I'm not feeling too well.
>@Trip – you beat me to it.
>So, EWME, here's another question for you:How can a woman (personal attractiveness aside) earn your respect? Do be specific.
>"Males are sexually dominant animals throughout most of the animal kingdom." Are we now ordering our sex lives based on how *some* animals fuck? If so, I'll take bonobo. And also the retirement plan of leaf-cutter ants. Please.
>I agree Hide, bonobos have a cool society and we should be more like them.
>Ooh! Ooh! Can I be a hyena? I always wanted to be a hyena! I want an oversize clitoris I can penetrate men with, that would be awesome. Also, hyenas are basically walking disprovals of EWME's "male dominance in sex" theory, which is surprisingly close to Ms. Dworkin's theory on the matter for a supposed anti-feminist. Plagiarism…?
>Why would a person want to have control during sex anyway? It's a collaborative effort. When I'm dancing with someone I'm not in control of them, even if I'm leading. Ditto for sex. I find the sex/dancing metaphor to be extremely informative.
>"Males are sexually dominant animals throughout most of the animal kingdom" EWME-clearly not a biologist. 75% of the animal kingdom species are arthropods (which includes insects and spiders) which do not have a pattern of "sexually dominant males". The next biggest phyllas are, you guessed it-worms and mollusks. Of the about 1,000,000 known animal species, mammals are only about 4,500. And, of the mammals, slightly less than a third are rodents (male rodents are not sexually or socially dominant for most species either). Even the remaining 2,300 or so non-rodent mammals, not all of those have "sexually dominant" males either. Beetles (a subset of arthropods) have the most species at 350,000. Bow down before the power of beetle society fools!
>$50 says facts don"t get in the way of Evil's conclusion.Also, now I can't stop thinking of beetle sex.
>I've seen pictures of a snake sexball. Apparently, when it's mating season, some species of snake all curl up into a giant snake orgy. That might be kind of cool, if only our spines were as bendy as snake spines!
>@ Lady VicI've personally witnessed the annual spring orgy of yellow-spotted salamanders. Literally thousands of them, wrapped around each other in balls of salamanders 2-3 across, thrashing in the swamp water so much that the water actually roils. It does sound like fun, minus the being in a swamp part. I'd just as soon not be a duck or a rat though. Male rats have pointy barbed penises. Male ducks have giant spiral penises, and female ducks have bizarre labyrinthine vaginas with multiple dead ends. They can literally choose to close off their uterus and send the sperm up a dead end if they don't like their suitor/rapist. I think the existence of the clitoris is evidence enough that rape is not an adaptive behavior for humans, at least not AS adaptive as mutually pleasurable sexual behavior. Even if it were (adaptive), once upon a time, who's to say it is now? And just because it was once an adaptive behavior doesn't mean we should tolerate it or encourage it. Murdering people is also an adaptive behavior in certain circumstances. Naturalistic fallacy, how I love deconstructing thee. It's always an excellent opportunity to discuss some more interesting aspects of animal behavior. Folks who are interested in more bizarre animal sex practices should check out Isabella Rossellini's Green Porno series she did for the Sundance Channel. It's hilarious. She dresses up as various kinds of animals (bee, snail, barnacle, worm, dolphin, deer, etc.) and acts out their mating behaviors, with a puppet versions of said animal as her mating partner. "Ah! My penis breaks off! I fall to the ground, bleeding to death. But my sperm will fertilize a new generation of bees!" http://www.sundancechannel.com/greenporno/
>I just watched a couple of Rossellini's shorts – those are awesome! And yeah, I find it curious when men suggest that rape is the 'natural order of things,' but then are at a complete loss to explain why women evolved the clitoris – the only organ whose sole purpose is sexual pleasure (everything else serves double duty). Gee, maybe evolution figured out that more babies happen when women enjoy/want to have sex, too?
>> the clitoris – the only organ whose sole purpose is sexual pleasure (everything else serves double duty)Not quite. There's the male nipple.
>@ Joe: The male nipple is a holdover, not an evolutionary adaptation.
>"thewhatifgirl said… May I humbly suggest that David construct a small section on this blog wherein the arguments that always come up (for example, "feminists never blame women") are dealt with succinctly, so we can just refer these guys there when they inevitably bring up an argument that they think we must have never heard before because it didn't come out of their genius brains yet? "I like this idea. Maybe give them numbers so we can just say, "that's number 14".Which reminds me of the joke about the newly convicted prisoner going to the mess hall the very first time. Signs on the wall say "no talking," but he hears the old timers one by one call out numbers. "142." Laughter. "85." More laughter. "239." Chuckles. "177." Guffaws.He gets back to his cell and asks his cellmate what that was all about. "As you know, we're not allowed to converse in the mess hall, but we've all memorized these jokes from this here joke book, so we just call out the number and laugh. The guards are okay with it and everyone's happy."The new guy reads and reads the joke book and starts to get it, he laughs when he recognizes a number and starts to see the fun in it.A month or so into his sentence, he has the jokebook memorized. He decides to take a chance, and, at a lull in the number-calling, "91!" he calls out.Silence.Someone else quickly jumps in with "317," and the laughs resume.When he gets back to the cell he dejectedly asks his cellmate, "what happened? that was one of the funniest jokes in the book.""Son," the cellmate replies sympathetically, "some folks just don't know how to tell a joke."