>
 |
| 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.
>Men can lactate too, given enough stimulation.
>I skimmed through this, and here's the gist of what I got:I disagree with this man and he compared the treatment of a sex to that of other groups, so I'll fixate on that and call misogyny again. Also, the commenter above me is talking about men lactating for some reason.
>Feminists seem to pull things out of their ass and call it “patriarchy”. They call anything "patriarchy" even that it makes no connection or sense regarding that it truly is patriarchy.I am holding my dick in my hand, oh, that's patriarchy ROFLFor example, regarding evilwhitemale’s post, in response Lady Vic said:"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."WTF? How is this patriarchy?What is seriously wrong with feminists? Come on, this is ridiculous. It's like me saying that just because some women don't like wealthy men, this is "matriarchy" Just because women have standards, this is matriarchy.Anyway, here is another ridiculous post that's so easy to ridicule.Xtra said"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.""I like using nicko logic, it's fun"So that would mean just because the prime minister of Australia is a woman and the premier of Queensland is a woman, that means I live in a matriarchal society as the two most powerful people who pull the strings in the society I live in are women.Does this mean I can start cracking a mental fit and shout in women's faces while telling them that I am oppressed because now I live in a matriarchal society?Seriously, you feminists are raven loons. You truly are fucking demented. You just pull anything out of your ass and call it patriarchy.This behaviour from a person is seriously disturbingI suggest to see a shrink and tell them all about this. They would be amazed.GET HELP!
>"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?"Probably only 1 percent of feminism blames women for an issue.
>Well, I am off to get something to eat. I guess that's an act of patriarchy too as feminists just pull anything out of their arse and call it patriarchy
>Wow Stringer, I guess you're too dumb to relate my post on lactation to the three or four posts above it talking about the evolutionary function of male nipples. What's the matter, can't read more than a few sentences in one sitting? Poor short-term memory? I'd like to know how feminism is broken down into percentages. Is that a percent of the types of feminisms? Like, eco-feminism, womanism, first wave, second wave, third wave, sex-positive, lesbian separatist? Or perhaps it's 1% of feminISTS, that is, people who self-identify as feminists. Of course then you'd have to wonder what "an issue" is. Generic issues. Yup. I blame men for generic issues. It's all men's fault, whatever it is. I guess this really is how boringly simplistic the whole MRA ethos really is. Projection and stupidity. Nicko, I'm sure you could turn eating out into an exercise in patriarchy. Maybe you could hit on the cashier and not take no for an answer. Leer a little bit. Condescend to her. Enjoy watching her try to suppress her discomfort. Or try pinching your waitress' butt. Suss out her boss first, if it's a guy she might not say anything to him, in which case, there's nothing stopping you, you force of nature, you! Also, if you see a gay couple while you're eating, make sure to wrinkle your nose and shoot dirty looks at them whenever possible. Try to make sure they notice.
>Gee, maybe evolution figured out that more babies happen when women enjoy/want to have sex, too? I think, in a species like ours, where pregnancy and giving birth is so goddamn problematic, thanks to our oversized brains, having sex be extremely desirable for females must be a necessary adaptation.
>I just got hot chips, a woman cooked it. Again, I will pull something out of my ass and call it patriarchy. Why not? Feminists do it all the time because they are a bit….ummm demented
>Well, I am off to get something to eat. I guess that's an act of patriarchy too as feminists just pull anything out of their arse and call it patriarchyI'm sorry that you're having trouble understanding the fundamental premises that you've elected to argue about, but let me remind you that nobody forced you to come sit at the grown-ups' table.
>Oh, I just farted. Is that patriarchy too?It came from a man so it must be
>"Nicko, I'm sure you could turn eating out into an exercise in patriarchy. Maybe you could hit on the cashier and not take no for an answer. Leer a little bit. Condescend to her. Enjoy watching her try to suppress her discomfort." I guess if the roles were reversed, this would be matriarchy, right?Oh damn, I am forgetting, there is a foolish feminist double standard. I would be deemed as an idiot if I called it matriarchy.Just as I would be deemed as an idiot if I said it was “matriarchy” because the prime minister of Australia is a woman and the premier of Queensland is a woman. So the two most powerful people in the society I live in are women. This must be matriarchy once again!I am entitled to call it this, right? When the prime minister and premier is a man, it’s not foolish in a feminist world to call it patriarchy.
>Yep-Nick has got to be 12.
>"Nicko, I'm sure you could turn eating out into an exercise in patriarchy. Maybe you could hit on the cashier and not take no for an answer. Leer a little bit. Condescend to her. Enjoy watching her try to suppress her discomfort."I guess if the roles were reversed, this would be matriarchy, right?Oh, definitely. If men had been systematically and sometimes forcefully prevented from fully participating in civil society for thousands of years, and if men had only recently persuaded the ruling class of women to grant you the right to own property, attend secondary education, get jobs that involved doing things besides fixing plumbing, mowing the lawn, and looking after the children, vote, and hold office, and if you, a man, were working a minimum wage type job just to hold it together, and a woman (who, being a member of the ruling class, has come to expect automatic deference and respect from any man) came in and made a suggestion to which you were not amenable, yet refused to take no for an answer, then yes. That would be matriarchy.
>"If men had been systematically and sometimes forcefully prevented from fully participating in civil society for thousands of years, and if men had only recently persuaded the ruling class of women to grant you the right to own property, attend secondary education, get jobs that involved doing things besides fixing plumbing, mowing the lawn, and looking after the children, vote, and hold office, and if you, a man, were working a minimum wage type job just to hold it together, and a woman (who, being a member of the ruling class, has come to expect automatic deference and respect from any man) came in and made a suggestion to which you were not amenable, yet refused to take no for an answer, then yes."Do women have these burdens in America 2011? NO. So that means there is no patriarchy.In fact, MEN WERE FORCED TO BE THE FINANCIAL SLAVES OF WOMEN IN THE PAST. But feminists never mention any of this as they have no consideration for men.Anyway, just because patriarchy may existed generations ago…well a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away in a time before I was even born, this doesn't mean it's existing in 2011.Just because you are angry about what happened in the past, this doesn't mean you should pull anything out of your ass in 2011 and call it "patriarchy".
>Aw, how cute, nicko actually thinks he's being smart.
>"Aw, how cute, nicko actually thinks he's being smart." I am as I am pointing out how fucking stupid, delusional, and demented feminists truly are.It's truly entertaining to watch feminists constantly pull things out of their arse and call it patriarchy. They think nearly everything is patriarchy. As I am typing this message, it must be patriarchy, heh
>I'm in bed petting a very, very patriarchal cat. She is a reactionary and her mews are very demeaning to the feminists, and by that I mean all women.Oh, wait, my cat is female so that must mean I hate her. Kind of makes me wonder why I'm giving her ear scritchums right now. It couldn't be that these feminists are retarded and wrong, no.
>Huh, I didn't know Nick was Australian. Australia has a regressive/conservative element similar to America's, so that's hardly a surprise.
>String is being less coherent then normal.Yep, Nick is a 12 year old Australian male.
>e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 Even when females are giving orders, it's patriarchy as what some retarded feminist was saying earlier in this thread.As much as there are things to laugh about towards people in the Men's Rights movement, a very large number of feminists are a total cack session. They are more screwy than anything.
>[Two white dudes sitting around laughing about how stupid black people insist that they experience racism every day. "Haha, white supremacy is everywhere. Look, I just farted. I guess it's because I'm racist. My turds come from a white butt. Guess that means my turds are oppressing black people. Hahahaha."]
>String likes his female cat hence he doesn't hate human females.Logic.
>Explain exactly how black people experience racism everyday?In fact, explain how white people are privileged.You feminuts have a serious chip on your shoulder towards white males. You totally hate our guts as you just whine about us all day every day. Feminists seem have this obsessive need to nitpick white men at any chance they have.That right there is discriminatory against a group. A movement called feminism constantly looks for any way to knock the white male down. It’s an obsession in their minds.The biggest offenders of discrimination in year 2011 are feminists. It's so ironic that they claim they are against the very thing they are the biggest offenders of.
>Feminists would have to be the biggest polluters on the planet. The biggest wasters and consumers of useless junk that contributes to the dying of humanity. Hardly anything gets done about it, even that it’s so damn obvious. Instead, they just buy more and more rubbish that keeps the cycle of hate prevailing that causes gender wars and people to be angry at each other.They think their movement is doing good for humanity but instead it just causes hatred and bigotry. They are so blind to see it, it’s very disturbing. Religion is poisonous to humanity as it is but feminism seems to be a more severe case.The hatred and anger towards males from the movement is incredibly massive. If you claim to be a feminist, you are a raven idiot.
>@nickoYeah, cause I'm totally gonna take somebody who calls me 'fucking stupid, delusional, and demented' seriously. Oh, wait, I have a sense of self worth.