Pointy-Haired Cartoonist

Filed in National by on March 28, 2011

Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, stepped into a huge controversy when he decided to write about Men’s Rights Activists. The original Adams post has been disappeared from Adams’s blog and mysteriously from Google Cache after Adams got lot of criticism. Feministe has the details:

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, brazenly misogynistic argument that seemed to have been cribbed from some of the more idiotic comments on MRA and “Men Going Their Own Way” message boards. It turned out that the reason Adams thinks men should “get over it” is that … well, you’d best just 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.

As Kyle’s mom would say: “what what what??” This is the sort of shit you expect from some low-grade loser on a misogynist Mecca like 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.

I would write more about how women are now expected to work and raise children, all for less money than a man makes but my feeble, child-like womanbrain can’t process things so fast.

Tags: , , ,

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (25)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Lt. Bradshaw says:

    What YOU need is some LOOSENERS Castor Oil Flakes, with real glycerin and vivrafoam.
    It doesn’t just clean the mouth, it cleanses the whole system from the top……..right on down the line.

  2. socialistic ben says:

    sounds like Lt knows a lot about constipation.
    I saw this http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-26/study-womens-gains-make-men-anxious/?cid=hp%3Amainpromo7 on TDB. im not sure who these so called “men” are who run around terrified that women will…. what exactly? move us all under ground and use us exclusively for mating?
    im in.

  3. Lt. Bradshaw says:

    Not anymore,my friend sb. Thanks to LOOSENERS!
    Remember what the guys down the station house sing:
    ” Oh, it ain’t no use if you ain’t got the boost,
    the boost you get from LOOSENERS!
    LOOSENERS….The ALL WEATHER breakfast!”

  4. anon says:

    You’re right Pandora.

  5. pandora says:

    Children, mentally handicapped and a chess game? And the other day Erickson spoke about women drivers.

    This is becoming very tiresome.

  6. anon says:

    I mean UI. Sorry, I lost track of who wrote the post. Another busted joke.

    Anyway, Adams’s post was a bit sour but I wouldn’t call it misogynistic. He wasn’t calling women children or retarded, any more than Obama was calling Palin a pig when he made the “lipstick on a pig” remark about Republican economic policy. Adams was using the analogy to refer to the futility of arguing with political correctness.

    I accept that women make less money for equal pay, but in truth that conflicts with my own experience, so I am just accepting it on faith. I haven’t taken the time to look into the studies.

    Even if true I think it may be equalizing recently. Men are being laid off faster than women in this recession. A lot of women work in health care and teaching, which has not suffered wage reductions as much as other jobs.

  7. Really, comparing women to children is not misogynistic? Advice for the future: it’s probably better to say something like “I don’t think it’s misogynistic” rather than declaring it so. One thing that gets men in trouble is telling women they didn’t experience what they experienced or they don’t feel what they feel.

    As far as the recession goes, more men lost jobs because they are more likely to be higher-paid and full-time. Women are more likely to be lower-paid and part-time. BTW, of the jobs coming back, they are much more likely to go to men.

  8. anon says:

    Really, comparing women to children is not misogynistic?

    I just got done explaining that I don’t think women were being compared to children. I don’t see the analogy working that way. It was a way to convey the sense of futility of arguing, not the mental capacity of women.

    it’s probably better to say something like “I don’t think it’s misogynistic”

    D’OH!! I said “I wouldn’t call it misogynistic.” Wrong! I’ll try to do it the right way next time.

    While men’s pay got hit harder I think men’s pay got hit harder during the man-cession, it is probably true I think it is probably true that they will get some of it back during recovery. Either way, the studies need to be freshened up and done again I think the studies need to be freshened up and done again.

  9. Geezer says:

    UI: You probably wouldn’t say these things if you weren’t all hormoney and full of lady parts.

    To be serious, if you work in a lab I imagine you probably face more than the normal daily misogyny quotient. What I find ironic about all this is that I feel exactly as Adams does — except I feel it towards guys who want to whine about “men’s rights.” Arguing with them is pointless, because they’re like children, only hairier.

  10. pandora says:

    Check out his last paragraph:

    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. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us

    There’s so much fail here. Notice how a man must deal with each group because of emotional realities. What are these emotional realities? Please, someone explain this phrase.

    Notice also how a man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning.

    What does that mean? That men know what a good fight is? That the end goal is winning, not solving the problem? That any other issue/fight not considered worthy by a man must be handled in the same way you’d handle an issue/fight with a child or a mentally handicapped person?

    This article, imo, is misogynistic. And, yes, he is comparing women to children and mentally handicapped people. How could he not be when the way of dealing with all three groups is the same?

  11. socialistic ben says:

    ” I feel it towards guys who want to whine about “men’s rights.” Arguing with them is pointless, because they’re like children, only hairier.”


  12. socialistic ben says:

    what the hell is wrong with this guy?
    this is the same thing as bill-o saying “im not trying to be racist, but all terrorists are a-rabs”

    Scott, get out of the social issues game and back to your sketch pad where you belong.
    My only real gripe is that there isnt really anything to differentiate me, a straight white man, from these cave-man like nimrods. It’s almost enough to make you wanna find a way to create an actual threat to “them” so all their whining and bitching isnt in vane.

  13. anon says:

    I am getting dizzy from the circular proof loop offered here.

    In my real life my women’s rights credentials are impeccable. I have made sacrifices so my wife could go back to school, and now she makes more money than me. I actually know couples who divorced because the controlling husband did not want the wife to go back to work or to school.

    But I still know an unsupported argument when I hear one.

  14. Dana Garrett says:

    “Adams was using the analogy to refer to the futility of arguing with political correctness.” Classic example of not seeing the forrest from the trees. Those making the so-called politically correct arguments are women, which are compared to mental defectives and children. There’s nothing misogynistic about that, you say? You’ve got to be kidding.

  15. socialistic ben says:

    I like geezer’s approach.

    you’re right scott. it IS unfair. white men have it SO hard these days. here, here is a COOKIE! a cookie for you! YAY SCOTT. who’s a big strong man? YOU ARE!!!!!

  16. “Emotional” – code for “it’s all in your head.”

    I also how Adams admits he doesn’t know about the issue because he doesn’t think it’s important. So, of course he writes a blog post about the issue and shows his ignorance.

    The reluctance of some men to even accept that women are not treated as equals 100% of the time is grating. Even when you say “this happened to me” some will tell you that you’re wrong or oversensitive.

  17. pandora says:

    Here’s a little story that demonstrates how the “emotional” card is played…

    My brother-in-law was flying in for his father’s 80th BD this February. Initially, we were all going out to dinner, but when that fell through he asked if I could host the dinner at my house. I agreed.

    A week later there was a problem between brothers (don’t ask) and the plans weren’t firmed up. 5 days before the dinner I still didn’t know what was going on, so I called. I was told not to worry, and that he takes these things in stride because he’s not “emotionally invested” in crap like this.

    (picture my head exploding)

    I told him that he was correct. He was not emotionally invested. He was also not financially invested or labor invested since I would be paying for the groceries and alcohol and doing all the cooking and cleaning. Funny how quiet he became. Guess I was being oversensitive.

    [end of rant]

  18. V says:

    Pandora, sorry to hear your BIL is not “emotionally invested” in his relationship with his brother or his father’s birthday.

    and I make more money that my boyfriend (who, I would assume, works in a different field like anon probably does from his wife) but that doesn’t really mitigate the fact that women overwhelmingly are present in lower-paying jobs, which (while maybe safer from downsizing in the mancession) are still low paying. I’m pretty confident that freshened up studies will still show this.

  19. anon says:

    Dana (a guy) says: Those making the so-called politically correct arguments are women

    Yet another argument that contains its own negation.

    It is like the Cretan Paradox.

  20. anon says:

    Pandora, if you don’t mind saying, how did the dinner party work out in the end?

  21. pandora says:

    Ugh, it was a crazy time. Unfortunately, it was the weekend my best friend died and I had been at the hospital all day (dinner was on Fri., she passed on Sun.) – ended up ordering everything from Janssen’s. That said, I had the dinner I didn’t cook (but did pay for), but I retired early. Couldn’t keep up appearances, but, at least, everyone was fed – and fed really well!

    My BIL’s comment infuriated me and diminished what I was willing to do – at his request, which, btw, was made because he’s struggling financially. Boo flippin’ hoo is my new motto when it comes to him. It will be a long time before I do this again. Which probably makes me petty and emotional. 😉

  22. Dana Garrett says:

    The criticism has nothing to do with the Cretan paradox. Why you think it does totally escapes me. When I wrote “Those making the so-called politically correct arguments are women,” I was characterizing Adams’ argument, not mine. Since I think it’s irrelevant that women might make PC arguments, I am not in the same affirmative position as a Cretan who holds “All Cretans are liars.” So your analogy mixtures. There can be nothing self refuting about what is neither affirmed nor self referential.

  23. anon says:

    Why you think it does totally escapes me.

    Henceforth known as the “Garrett Paradox” 🙂

    I think both genders make the politically correct argument about equal pay. I do it too, because I assume the studies are more accurate than my eyes.

    I wonder what the pay ratios would look like if you crossed off the top 1000 investment bankers, who are really on their own planet anyway and don’t belong in studies with normal people.

  24. Dana Garrett says:

    “Analogy misses” that should say.

  25. C says:

    Wow, people are upset over this?

    He’s a comedian. Do you get upset over South Park’s extreme analogies to problems?

    Here is the thesis of his argument:

    “A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us”

    That’s a true statement on a typical male’s conflict resolution methodology.