Scott Adams is a cowardly douchebag.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's a post that Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) wrote, posted, then deleted March 7th on his blog. It doesn't just insult Women and their ongoing march towards equality by comparing them to children and the disabled, it also insults Men and a few of their legitimate complaints about how the system treats them. I have NO idea what is wrong with him, but I've lost a lot of respect for the man.

Scott Adams wrote this post today, March 7 2011, on his blog and then deleted it.​
The topic my readers most want me to address is something called men’s rights. (See previous post.) This is a surprisingly good topic. It’s dangerous. It’s relevant. It isn’t overdone. And apparently you care.
Let’s start with the laundry list.
According to my readers, examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women.
You might add to this list the entire area of manners. 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.
How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don’t think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said.
Women will counter with their own list of wrongs, starting with the well-known statistic that women earn only 80 cents on the dollar, on average, compared to what men earn for the same jobs. My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.
Women will point out that few females are in top management jobs. Men will argue that if you ask a sample group of young men and young women if they would be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve such power, men are far more likely to say yes. In my personal non-scientific polling, men are about ten times more likely than women to trade family time for the highest level of career success.
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.
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.
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.
Fairness is an illusion. It’s unobtainable in the real world. I’m happy that I can open jars with my bare hands. I like being able to lift heavy objects. And I don’t mind that women get served first in restaurants because I don’t like staring at food that I can’t yet eat.
If you’re feeling unfairly treated because women outlive men, try visiting an Assisted Living facility and see how delighted the old ladies are about the extra ten years of pushing the walker around. It makes dying look like a bargain.
I don’t like the fact that the legal system treats men more harshly than women. But part of being male is the automatic feeling of team. If someone on the team screws up, we all take the hit. Don’t kid yourself that men haven’t earned some harsh treatment from the legal system. On the plus side, if I’m trapped in a burning car someday, a man will be the one pulling me out. That’s the team I want to be on.
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.​
 

Zappit

Staff member
Is that for real - he wasn't hacked? Cuz that's overboard even for Scott Adams. Damn revealing if it is, though.
 
Is that for real - he wasn't hacked? Cuz that's overboard even for Scott Adams. Damn revealing if it is, though.
There have been blogs that discuss or repost his blog, and someone claiming to be him has shown up to defend them, saying "they're for Dilbert readers, who are smarter" [paraphrase].
 
Really? Because it seemed to me that he blamed men's higher suicide rates on women, in a roundabout way.
Not to mentioned he calls them pussys for wanting equal treatment in the eyes of the law. No one should have to feel singled out by the law.
 
C

Chibibar

Ok, I am all about women's right and everything, but I don't see the "wrong" in what he is saying.
This is what I see. Men uses strategy to make their lives easier. Men are punish harder because other men screw up and thus we all take a hit. Men are "likely" to be "money successful" because they are willing to sacrifice everything for it (this is not necessary a good thing cause I rather be happy than successful)

this is just a personal observation and interpretation of Scott Adam.
Added at: 17:00
Not to mentioned he calls them pussys for wanting equal treatment in the eyes of the law. No one should have to feel singled out by the law.
To my understanding, he is calling the men a bunch of pussy
 
Scott, is that really the topic most of your readers want you to address? As a man I never thought it was unfair that I hold a door open for a woman nor have I gotten upset at not being served first. Scott, you are a douchebag.
 
Uh... he's telling whiny men to shut the hell up. I don't see what the problem is.

I think the people pissed at him need to learn to read a little bit better.

That said, Scott Adams is a big horse's ass. But he's my kind of horse's ass.
 

Cajungal

Staff member
I have to admit, I was expecting to be more shocked. It was obnoxious to read, but I suppose I was expecting worse.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Uh... he's telling whiny men to shut the hell up. I don't see what the problem is.
"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."

Not "to those who won't shut up", not "to those who are vocal about" but to those who feel unjustly treated by the suppression of their rights. I'd say any class that has had their rights suppressed has reason to feel unjustly treated.

But I suppose it's possible to read that sentence, not as it's written, but as it was likely intended, that they only feel their rights have been suppressed, but in actuality haven't been.
 
"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."

Not "to those who won't shut up", not "to those who are vocal about" but to those who feel unjustly treated by the suppression of their rights. I'd say any class that has had their rights suppressed has reason to feel unjustly treated.

But I suppose it's possible to read that sentence, not as it's written, but as it was likely intended, that they only feel their rights have been suppressed, but in actuality haven't been.

meh, this is now getting into that 90% realm.
 
He's a comedian and entertainer. If you heard this script from some stand up comic, perhaps with a bit more stage flair, timing, and rephrasing to make it suitable for that venue, then you'd probably laugh about it and move on.

Why are you taking it so seriously? Have you read his other blog posts?

When he says "it was meant for smarter readers" he's just making fun of the people who chose to be offended.

Yes, some comedy is offensive. A lot of people were offended by PA's d!ckwolves.

The fact that he's removed the blog post indicates that he is listening, and that the message some people got out of it was not a message he was willing to stand by and support.

molehill --> MOUNTAIN
 
M

makare

A lot of people think that same kind of stupid shit they are just smart enough not to write it down for all to see. They just say it to their friends who are either stupid like they are and agree or they roll their eyes. Damn internet.
 
Well, quite frankly, it's an interesting topic. There are doubtless a number of research papers that discuss our culture from an anthropological standpoint in the same way - the reason they are inoffensive is because they don't make moral judgments about the observations they've made - they simply report how the society works, theorize as to how it may have evolved into the current state, try to detect trends, and compare it to other cultures.

But you know at the faculty mixer's they're totally bashing [group or ethnicity].
 
I read this thread title as Scott Kurtz, and am disappointed.

That said, I question why people are taking this seriously and have ever read stuff from Scott Adams. Or are we supposed to assume that he was being dead serious when he suggested that the rich should be able to pay higher taxes to gain the right to park in handicap spots?
 
Scott Adams made fun of big business, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a big business.

The he made fun of the handicapped, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't handicapped.

Now he's making fun of men, and no one is left to speak up for me.
 
Scott Adams made fun of big business, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a big business.

The he made fun of the handicapped, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't handicapped.

Now he's making fun of men, and no one is left to speak up for me.
win
 
hehehe. Sounds like he really is taking a page from the crazy book that Tom Cruise and Charlie Sheen penned.

Ah well.

I think the PA guys have it right. They keep a forum for their user base, but they rarely, if ever, dip their own toes into it. You've gotta keep a distance from the stuff surrounding you. Sounds like Adams became too emotionally involved in stuff that he should have left well enough alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top