The Paris attacks have inspired cartoonist and opinion-haver Scott Adams to reflect on some of the true injustices in the world today.
Specifically, the fact that in the United States, men often pay for dates, yet cannot have sex with women without getting their permission first.
In a blog post that is incoherent even by his standards, Adams compares the male-dominated societies of the Middle East with what he describes as “female-dominated countries” like the US.
In his mind, American men live in a matriarchal dystopia in which women force men to pay for dinner and open car doors for them:
When I go to dinner, I expect the server to take my date’s order first. I expect the server to deliver her meal first. I expect to pay the check. I expect to be the designated driver, or at least manage the transportation for the evening. And on the way out, I will hold the door for her, then open the door to the car.
Weird, because I’ve literally never had a date like that. And even if all this were true, as a general thing, it wouldn’t be proof that the US is “female-dominated.” Chivalry is part of patriarchy, not proof of matriarchy.
When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman.
Er, dude, that’s how sex works. Both sex partners have to agree to it, otherwise it’s rape. And men have veto power when it comes to sex just like women do. Women aren’t allowed to force themselves on unwilling partners any more than men are.
If the woman has additional preferences in terms of temperature, beverages, and whatnot, the man generally complies. If I fall in love and want to propose, I am expected to do so on my knees, to set the tone for the rest of the marriage.
What a romantic fellow, proposing to a woman even though she’s some kind of spoiled princess who has preferences about room temperature and refuses to have sex when she doesn’t want to have sex.
Also, Adams wants everyone to know that when he talks over women in meetings, it’s not that he’s a sexist, it’s just that women talk too much.
Women have made an issue of the fact that men talk over women in meetings. In my experience, that’s true. But for full context, I interrupt anyone who talks too long without adding enough value. If most of my victims turn out to be women, I am still assumed to be the problem in this situation, not the talkers.
But really, the problem is that ladies just won’t shut up amirite fellas high five!
The alternative interpretation of the situation – that women are more verbal than men – is never discussed as a contributing factor to interruptions. Can you imagine a situation where – on average – the people who talk the most do NOT get interrupted the most?
Uh, yes. Because that’s not just a hypothetical “situation.” It’s the way the world actually works.
I don’t know if the amount of talking each person does is related to the amount of interrupting they experience, or if there is a gender difference to it, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis.
Unfortunately for Adams, this is a hypothesis that’s been repeatedly disproved. Men talk more than women in meetings, yet are more likely to interrupt women than women are to interrupt them.
Weird how Adams, who thinks of himself as a rational sciencey guy, didn’t even bother to do the 30 seconds of Googling that would have shown that his “reasonable hypothesis” was a crock.
Speaking of weirdness, Adams goes on to suggest that he might turn to terrorism if no one gives him a hug. Literally.
So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn’t religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I’m not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.
NOTE TO SELF: Do not invite Scott Adams to any party without also inviting this dude:
Or maybe don’t invite Adams to any parties at all.
So, when they get home the woman ties his hands behind his back and locks him in the basement or something? Because dude, you have (I guess) two healthy hands. and if you are absolutely fixated on the idea, that “sex” is only happening when you get to stick your dick into another human being, there are a lot of women out there who like casual sex.
but I guess what that dude really means is that he feels entitled to each and every woman he desires and that’s the problem.
” if you are absolutely fixated on the idea, that “sex” is only happening when you get to stick your dick into another human being, there are a lot of women out there who like casual sex.”
– I don’t think these men want casual sex or the women who want it too. They call those women “sluts”, right? They look down on them, right?
“but I guess what that dude really means is that he feels entitled to each and every woman he desires and that’s the problem.”
– Who knows what the hell these guys want. They contradict themselves 30,949 times a day.
That’s… awfully flippant.
Ignoring the people to whom you are specifically speaking (and they’d never listen to such advice, because the only reason why they date and get married is for the “promise” of sex with a woman, so if they can’t have that they get angry because their efforts are a “waste of time”), there are situations besides “hands don’t work” where that’s not really a solution.
…There are people (myself included) for whom another person’s touch is essential – masturbation is an empty experience which satisfies little or nothing.
…There are people whose significant other is jealous and/or controlling and who treat any form of sex that they’re not part of as a form of cheating. Including solo or watching porn. In this case they are (metaphorically) being handcuffed.
…There are people who don’t live alone, don’t have any real privacy, and their roommate(s) would strenuously object to any form of sexual behavior under their shared roof. Including masturbation. Especially problematic if the “roommate(s)” are actually their parent(s). Again, metaphorical handcuffs.
…There are religious people who consider masturbation to be sinful. Admittedly this isn’t that common anymore in western society (not sure about elsewhere), but it still exists.
@Argenti: Some people suggested “Ey” for “E”, as it might sound like you’re saying “he” while doing a bad Cockney impression. (Mind you, “Ey” might sound like you’re doing a bad Joisey impression!)
@Snowberry That still isn’t ‘women controlling sex’, though? (With the exception of the jealous partner scenario, which clearly isn’t what’s being discussed here.) That’s just kind of a situation where unfortunately sex (even the solo kind) isn’t really available to the person for whatever reason, not OMG WOMEN CONTROLLING ALL THE SEX HOW DARE THEY.
My Twitter feed got into a discussion sometime last week with all the women who have tried and struggled to get dates/relationships/sex because they weren’t conventionally attractive. There were a lot of them, shockingly enough. The thing that bugs me about MRAs is that they go on about “women” controlling sex but they really mean “about 10% of women who look like the women on tv, and if any other women expressed interest my masculinity would be ruined by association with her hideousness”.
Someone needs to explain to him that he doesn’t have a right to have sex with other people. Every individual has a right to control their reproductive functions, but no individual has a right to reproduce.
@lacrta viridis: That was probably me being more irritated with the common “just use your hands, durr” refrain than paying attention to the context. Still, I would like to reiterate that even staying properly within the bounds of context, “just use your hands” is going to be ignored by anyone who only dates and marries because they hope to get sex out of women. Because they’d just hear “just stay home and forget about women forever, durr”. Which is what most of us hope they would do anyway, but it’s still kind of insulting. I’m not sure if there’s any sort of advice you could give them that they’d listen to, but that’s definitely not it.
*writes in a little notebook*
Argenti’s pronouns are ze/zir.
Nequams’s are e/eir.
Okay! *places away notebook* Since we’re talking about pronouns, mine are usually them/their, although I would like he/him at the moment, but I don’t mind any pronouns that aren’t “it”. Because I just have to be the most complex, I guess.
@Snowberry tbh, I think a lot of us are just here to say ‘wow, that’s really stupid’ and not so much to attempt to give advice to misogynists. Because you’re right, they’re not listening anyway. I just… I read Tyra Lith’s post as saying ‘these women are not in fact somehow controlling these guys’ ‘access to sex’, since there’s nothing preventing these guys from either getting off by themselves or seeking out a woman who enjoys casual sex, since there are plenty out there’. Not ‘everything is great for these guys cause they can masturbate lolol’. (Sorry if I’m misinterpreting, Tyra – don’t want to speak for you or anything.)
Nequam — I’m from New England, with our accent “Ey?” is its own statement/question! Somewhat more quizzical than “Eh?” I guess?
In any case, I use ze/zir, you use e/eir, and Pandapool is usually of a they/them persuasion, but he/him currently, yeah?
Never it, humans are never an it, fuck, I rarely use it for my fish even.
Sorry, with that attitude you are not a normal boy, you are a douche. You have no idea how nice it is to be in a relationship (married for 32 years) where it’s not contest that a man or woman has to fight or win. By the way my husband taught me that…….it’s not a contest….it’s a marriage.
I had to stop reading Adams’ blog a few years ago when he said women were the same as children, I think that was it?. I think it was his first big blogging gaff? I had to unsubscribe from my Dilbert comics too 🙁
@Argenti
Some people do use “it” and that should be respected. There aren’t many but yeah.
But they/them is a pronoun you can always use for me. I’m genderfluid, genderflux more specifically. I’m agender but can have “feminine” and “masculine” stretches, although I’m waaay on the deep side of masculine right now. (Fucking dysphoria and everything – why.) He/him and they/them fit me best right now.
(Maybe I’ll just put my pronouns in my name since they can change.)
@tessa
“What about places that have a second doorway? Do you hold the first doorway open, then barrel past her to get to the second one?”
legit, literally laughed aloud at that shit
@pandapool that sounds a lot like my general thing gender-wise… and i so rarely get to say that…
@kale
You have no idea how relieved I was to find something that described how I felt when I found out about genderflux. I’ve seen so many gender identities but none really described how I felt I just went with genderfluid/genderqueer. But then I stumbled upon genderflux and I was like YES THAT’S IT. I know it’s alright to be unsure about your gender identity but, like, I didn’t like it. :/ I needed a label, something to show that other people experience this. And I did! 😀
(And now I realized why my posts weren’t going through earlier. My name changed somehow. :|)
I am everyone’s flux buddy.
Is it worth keeping a document somewhere of people’s preferred pronouns?
(For the record, I’m he/him. I like being male. It means that when I’m shy and come across as intimidating, people see that as admirable.)
English language: Making your personal pronouns truly personal 🙂 I guess that’s cool in a way, if somewhat impractical.
Couple years ago I read an interview of a Finnish queer/feminist activist who’s nonbinary. Otherwise, I’ve only ever known nonbinary people from English-language contexts like this blog.
Much later it occurred to me, I still have no idea what pronoun this Finnish person prefers in English. Finnish has only one gender-neutral pronoun so the question of preferred pronoun doesn’t exist – and you don’t even know it’s missing. Something like half the world’s languages are like this. When I speak English, I always feel it’s mildly inconvenient to remember to use correct pronouns for even binary people 🙂
That said, reflecting my own use of English has made me consider that my Finnish perception of gender is not necessarily equal in regard to male vs. female. This is something I’d never, ever notice if I only spoke Finnish. I mean, we do have binary gender roles and we do notice gender, but English makes me more conscious about noticing gender, which has potentially positive sides.
Then again, many European languages have an extensive gendering system not only for pronouns but also nouns and whatnot. I don’t speak any of those languages, and only recently started considering that it might also make a difference on how you discuss human gender.
I don;t know what sort of restaurants MRAbert visits, but I expect everybody who is at the table to have our food brought out at the same time or as close as possible. And when I am sitting at a table with both men and women, I expect the orders to be taken either clockwise or counter-clockwise, because only one person can order with any practicality at one time.
And I hold the door for people when it seems to make courteous sense, and people hold the door open for me sometimes when it makes courteous sense. Being polite is not a zero-sum game where one person receives and the other person gives.
Re door opening
British readers will no doubt be familiar with the “After you”, “No, after you”, “But I insist” ad infinitum scenario.
It’s a wonder any of us survive burning buildings.
Men with objectively much power are treated like women. They get doors opened for them, they are invited to paid meals, people pull out chairs for them etc… offer them free drinks.
I have no power and I am a man and I never get treated like that. Adams may be on to something.
I’m also he/him. I really have zero interest in being male but there’s no way anybody would identify me as anything other than male, and I’m not the type to put a lot of work into changing my appearance. So I guess I’m stuck with this.
As someone who used to work as a waitress: I can confirm this is the case.
I went around in a circle, or did one and then the other, and usually both of them went on the same ticket, so they were made at the same time, as that’s how the cooks worked as well. And even if they went on separate tickets, they usually went up right next to one another, so they were done one right after the other, and I wouldn’t take just one main dish to the table unless it was sent back to the kitchen for some reason, and then I was taking it back.