Oh, Scott Adams! Can you write anything about that whole man-woman business without being a creepy douche about it? In a recent blog post titled “Pegs and Holes” – which refers to exactly what you think it refers to — Adams offers his take on the powerful men who have been in the news lately because, as Adams puts it, they’ve been “tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world.”
After noting that the “current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior” and that this “seems right” to him – gee, ya think? – Adams decides to get all philosophical on us. (When you’re Scott Adams, this is a very very bad idea.) He writes:
The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn’t ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, “Here’s your square hole”?
I’m assuming that Adams doesn’t actually think that baby boys are born with erections, and realizes that it is biology, not society, that hands out penises and vaginas to babies in the first place. I’m just trying to understand the whole pegs and holes metaphor. Why does he think “round” penises and “square” vaginas are somehow incompatible? In the context of consensual sex, after all, penises of all shapes and sizes generally fit into vaginas quite nicely.
As far as I can figure it out, the round-vs-square analogy simply refers to the fact that men can’t simply stick their “round pegs” into any conveniently located “hole” whenever they feel like it. The fact that these “holes” aren’t accessible to any random guy thus renders them “square.” This seems to frustrate Adams, who goes on to complain that “society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness” and that “society is organized as a virtual prison for men’s natural desires.”
Looking at Hugh Hefner’s marital history – he’s been married and divorced and just got stood up at the altar – Adams concludes that:
For Hef, being single didn’t work, and getting married didn’t work, at least not in the long run. Society didn’t offer him a round hole for his round peg. All it offered were unlimited square holes.
What does this even mean? I suspect that over the course of his lifetime, Hef has had about all the sex he could possibly want, and then some. Is it somehow unjust that he couldn’t force his latest fiancée to actually marry him? Or that some women are sexually unavailable – that is, square holes – to him?
It goes without saying that Adams’ notions of human sexuality are profoundly insulting to both men and women . On the one hand, he’s suggesting that men are basically all potential rapists walking around with, er, turgid pegs; and, on the other, he seems to regard women as little more than passive (if stubbornly recalcitrant) receptacles for these male “pegs.”
And so it’s hardly surprising that his grand solution to the conundrum he’s invented is a rather depressing one. After noting that it really wouldn’t be a good thing for men to go around willy-nilly raping women and/or, as he puts it, tweeting their meat, he suggests the real solution is for men to be chemically castrated. And no, I’m not making that up. Here’s Scotty:
I think science will come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated for as long as they are on it. It sounds bad, but I suspect that if a man loses his urge for sex, he also doesn’t miss it. Men and women would also need a second drug that increases oxytocin levels in couples who want to bond. Copulation will become extinct. Men who want to reproduce will stop taking the castration drug for a week, fill a few jars with sperm for artificial insemination, and go back on the castration pill.
That might sound to you like a horrible world. But the oxytocin would make us a society of huggers, and no one would be treated as a sex object. You’d have no rape, fewer divorces, stronger friendships, and a lot of other advantages. I think that’s where we’re headed in a few generations.
Is he being serious here, or is this all some satirical “social experiment?” Who the fuck knows. Though I suspect if I accused him of being serious, he’d claim he was being satirical. And vice versa. Because that’s just the way he is.
Also, while I’m at it: the idiomatic expression about pegs and holes posits a square peg and a round hole, not the other way around. Why did Adams reverse this? Why!? Why!!?? Is he trying to drive us all mad?
EDITED TO ADD: Check out Feministe for more on Scott Adams and his peg.
EDITED AGAIN: And Pharyngula as well.
“Why, Mr. Slave, are you so fixated on the privilege of women to supposedly commit crime whenever they want and get away with it?”
I wouldn’t pretend to know, but maybe he was abused by a woman who got away with a light sentence.
It only really takes a couple exposures to bad men or women to make a budding misogynist or misandrist.
Of course, I wouldn’t want to defend someone whose screen name is a paranoid reference to the NWO taking over the world, but hey, there you go. Sometimes I surprise myself.
kirbywarp: Didn’t you read the memo… that statement was made by a woman… You know that showing the least disagreement with it could get you sent to a reeducation camp.
Or worse, the Rothchilds might take an interest in you, and the next thing you know they will have paid a feminist organisation to have you falsely accused of rape.
@kirbywarp
Well, sure, and there’s ample evidence that…women commit crime on a smaller scale than men and receive shorter prison sentences than men for similar crimes, okay, totally unfair. He just fixates on it like the false rape accusation thing, but he keeps going on about being able to commit a crime with no punishment! Which, I don’t know about all other women, but when I got a speeding ticket I sure as hell had to pay the fine just as much as any man would.
He just keeps bringing it up and it gives me the creeps, sort of like Mr. Al’s violent fantasies. Dunno, could just be a personal trigger, I just…what crimes does he want to commit with no punishment?
@Pecunium:
But.. noo, he… wait. She? Oh god.. No! No, I take it back! I’ll be good! Please, No! ARRRRGGHHHHhhhhhhh…..
Hello. I am Kirbywarp. Women are awesome. Men suck.
I am Kirbywarp.
@amandajane5:
Ok, I see what you mean. I don’t want to call it creepy just because he holds an opinion I think is wrong, because again if it were true his obsession with it would be understandable. But, I guess you can be creepy even as you are trying to fight for a cause? I dunno. I don’t get the same vibes as you, but I guess that just means we’re two different people. *shrug*
Oh crap! Forgot the memo! I will send my own personal army to herd you off to the re-education camp immediately!
Or, consider your point and think about it and try to respond in thoughtful and respectful manner.
I may or may not have done one of these things. The world may never know!
By his own logic (what exists of it) women are all pretty princesses obsessed with pedicures who live a life of leisure and never want for anything and if they cry in the middle of the street wanting for food it will be amply given. And can also commit any crime they want! At any time! And they will always get a free pass, because princesses! WHY CAN’T I COMMIT ANY CRIME I WANT?!?!?! Is what I hear, and that’s what I find creepy.
I mean, he does seem to know that women’s prisons exist, though he seems to think feminists want to abolish them, which I’d never heard of until he brought it up, but hey, being a feminist who reads feminist blogs daily means I’m clearly just under-informed, surely the manosphere knows better. Me? I just donate books to the local women’s prison, because they always want more for their library.
And y’all can just call me AJ if you want to abbreviate, I know I have a long username, but I’ve had it for a long time so I tend to keep it around.
@AJ:
Heh, that actually might make more sense than my interpretation of “Women can do anything they want! Its not fair, they should be confined to the same laws men are” for one reason. NWO wants to abolish government.
His ideal world is one of anarchy, where no laws exist to hamper his freedom to choose what to do. In that case, it makes more sense that he is envious of women’s supposed ability to live outside the law, he wants to do so as well! I don’t see it as far as wanting to commit any crime he wants, but I don’t see a very big leap from point A to point B. He just never gave the impression of wanting to break the law, especially with his repeated fixation on how women are murdering poor little babies. (I don’t think this means he wants to kill babies also)
Haven’t you ppl ever watched the cut scenes from The Hills DVDs where Lauren and her friends run around robbing and killing people, and then batting their eyelashes at police? xD
@Kirby
Well, so, typical libertarian fucktard? No laws! I will rule the world when there are no laws! No one should ever restrict my personal freedom! Also, women don’t get to choose anything for shit because uteri! Laws are for teh wymmynz!
Though, frankly, I’m not really interested in hearing what crimes he wants to commit and get off scot-free from the law about, but that’s mostly because I’ve read what he has to “say” before.
Might want to tell all the judges in the building I work in they should not be, in fact, finding any of the women charged with criminal or even civil offenses guilty because the women get passes from being a female. Better tell my best friend the public defender he needs to change his strategy on his female clients-and just file motions to dismiss citing the classic legal theory of “She is a girl.”
And seriously, NWO, we don’t need to use feminist ‘jargon’ to confuse you. You’re confused by basic arithmetic. By the idea that feminists do not think men have active and out-of-control sexualities while women are pretty, delicate creatures…what you refer to is patriarchal thought. Feminism (you might have heard that some universities call it ‘gender studies’) is all about arguing that you shouldn’t make assumptions about any person because of their gender. Assuming things (good or bad) about someone because of their gender = sexism.
I can’t help finding it deeply ironic that the likes of Mr Slave sneer at women who have expensive and time consuming grooming regimes. And claim that women who do this sort of thing are vacuous whores.
When these are the exact same men who’ll sneer at women who have hairy legs, cellulite and frizzy hair. And claim that women who look like this are pathetic ugly failures.
For God’s sake, gentlemen. Make your bitter little fucked-up borderline-autistic pitiful virginal care-in-the-community-gone-horribly-wrong minds up.
Do you like well-groomed women or not?
@ Lyn
But, basic arithmetic is feminist jargon. It’s all part of the Conspiracy!
Lyn and Johnny: trufact! My summer project is to write a New Feminist Jargon Book totes in numbers.
Patriarchy= 1
Kyriarchy= 2
Matriarchy= 10,000,000
Man= -1,000,000,000,000,000
Woman= 2,000,000,000,000,000
Wymymym= 900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
And besides addition, substraction, distraction, multiplexion, I plan to use the Sooooooooooper sekrit mathematical method of ………CASTRATION!!!
XD
He does touch on an interesting phenomenon nonetheless. The fact that bad behavior in men is consistently rewarded by society. As long as a man doesn’t go too far (i.e. break the law) behaving like an ass will win him support.
The sitcom “two and a half men” illustrates very well (though exaggerated of course) how a man must often decide between being caring and respectful on the one hand and fulfilled and successful on the other hand. Trying to be both means walking a tightrope that only exceptions can handle.
It is the male counterpart to the tightrope that women have to walk when they want to be powerful and successful and yet feminine and attractive. It is just as hard. Though the difference is, that women at least have the option that will make them no enemies. Men will have to deal with adversity in either of the two priority choices.
I sometimes find they way they talk about things creepy too. It would be like if the civil rights movement gave a vibe that they did not really want to stop the lynching of black people but just wanted equal opportunity to lynch whites just as much. Or advocates against child abuse wanting equal abuse of adults……yeah, creepy.
Though the difference is, that women at least have the option that will make them no enemies.
Which options makes women no enemies? I think, on average, powerful and successful makes enemies of (some) men and feminine and attractive makes enemies of (some) women. I suppose being weak and unattractive wouldn’t make enemies. Except, well, there’s actually an awful lot of hatred thrown at fat and ugly women too.
The difference is that when women are feminine and attractive, their enemies are such because of jealousy – a flaw in their behavior. While being successful and powerful means you have to adapt your own negative character traits. Because in order to get to the top you need to push away a lot of competitors and they won’t go away simply because you ask them to.
The difference is that when women are feminine and attractive, their enemies are such because of jealousy – a flaw in their behavior.
I think that in power situations there is also plenty of jealousy. Lots of people are jealous of success, especially success they see as unearned. And let’s face it – while plenty of it is earned a lot isn’t – people succeed because of family connections, because of being lucky to be born strong or attractive (which ties into success even in non looks related venues) or tall or smart. People get jealous of all of those things. It affects power dynamics.
in order to get to the top you need to push away a lot of competitors and they won’t go away simply because you ask them to.
In what situation do competitors go away simply because you ask them to? I think if asking people to go away is all that is needed those people aren’t really competitors.
I thought it was pretty well-trod territory that no matter what one does, what choices one makes, etc., one will never be able to please everyone. I get the feeling that nerd thinks it must be easier for women because … well, possibly because it’s easier for the one-dimensional women depicted on his favorite sitcoms — but as far as being damned if you do and damned if you don’t, I’ve never noticed sex having much of a role.
True, jealousy is certainly found directed at people in positions of power and success. I’ll call that the unjustified contempt for now. But my point was that people will also have justified contempt for those in power.
“In what situation do competitors go away simply because you ask them to? I think if asking people to go away is all that is needed those people aren’t really competitors.”
That was exactly my point. And the higher up you aim, the more competition you encounter. Hence, the higher up you aim, the more aggressive and ruthless you must be. And, that explains why people in high positions make many justified enemies. It’s pretty much inevitable.
@ Bee
Don’t even get me started on those. The women in that show are depicted as psychopathic neurotic selfish monsters. I was just talking about the men and only as an exaggeration of the real world.
Oh no! I’ve watched Two and a Half Men only once (on an airplane). There’s a gender studies masters thesis in there somewhere, I imagine.
I do think that powerful women encounter more flak just for being women – when male politicians are criticised it is largely for their policy decisions/things they say. I think that’s pretty legit. When female politicians are criticised it often has something to do with the way they dress – Hilary Clinton’s trousers just as an example. There are also certain words that are all about specifically shaming women who speak out about things or ‘nag’… words that have no masculine equivalent – e.g. bitch.