I used to regularly take slaps at Scott Adams, but it got old — he’s so imperturbably stupid that it seemed mostly pointless. He thinks he already knows everything, so he’ll never learn. Either that or he’ll talk to himself in a series of positive affirmations to confirm that he’s right anyway…PZ Myers telling him he’s wrong can’t possibly compete with Scott Adams telling Scott Adams how brilliant Scott Adams is.
But now David Futrelle reminds me that not only is he stupid, he’s just an awful person. Adams has written a complaint about how poor men are so put upon by feminists, because of their rules. He tries to explain what a typical imaginary date is like.
When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman. 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.
Think about that first sentence. What is the alternative, that women have no say in whether they have sex or not? The second sentence: yes, women get to have preferences. So do men. In good relationships, both parties try to make each other happy.
You are not expected to propose on your knees. I didn’t.
The whole thing is that way: Scott Adams doesn’t like the fact that women aren’t supplicants for his love, and that they might actually be autonomous human beings who need to have their desires respected as much as his.
But he saves his oblivious best for last. He has a solution to Islamist terrorism! It’s so simple, he thinks. All we have to do is tell all those young men with guns and bombs this simple promise:
If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.
Because those terrorists are all simply sexually frustrated? That’s so wrong and so silly, but it’s the foundation for his whole solution.
And say…who is Scott Adams to tell Middle Eastern men that he can give them access to women
? Does he think he’s holding the leashes on women everywhere? There’s an awful lot of similarity between Scott Adams and fundamentalist fanatics who think they’re the ones in charge of dispensing sexual favors.
And another reason I stopped reading Dilbert yeas ago.
You know, it was actually interesting (in a “I can’t believe I’m actually subjecting myself to this” sort of way) to check the course of Dilbert and watch Adams’s misogyny progress based on the way Alice and the other female characters were portrayed. Originally, Alice was the competent one who wasn’t valued because she was a woman. Over the years, she went over to being nothing but angry and violent.
The problem with nerds. Scott Aaronson considered medical castration.
Yeah, long ago, Scott made it clear that he just likes to stir the pot and watch the “monkeys dance”. The people who comment on his blog actually engage in more serious discourse than he does.
Given the mass of rapes committed with impunity by both Daesh’s soldiers and mercenaries as well as Assad’s Shabiha militiamen, I daresay that Scott Adam’s brilliant “go kill whoever we tell you to kill and you’ll be rewarded with your very own warm rapetoy” policy has already been implemented in Syria…
Strangely, given the choice between becoming unrepentant rapists and taking their chance in the Western civilization, thousands still risk life and limb to have the dubious honor of walking the same streets as our own
unashamedly petulant spoiled-rotten kidsright-wingersBy who? I expect the dinosaur which has such expectations is the one staring at you from the mirror.
attempting to rephrase this a little more comprehensibly:
Your leaders, who are disallowing sex, by offering empty promises of virgins awarded for killing infidels, should be the ones you attack. Then you’ll be able to seek out women without being watched by those evil overlords you are following. Free yourselves, recommended.
ugh. just riffing off the detail “you can have access to women…”, not “I will give you women…” as PZ inferred that Adams is implying. And the first line is what often is interpreted as the words of the quran, not necessarily what Adams is promising.
ugh, even if that’s what he was trying to say, it’s still a clusterfrak.
apologies, all the previous was just random ramblings, not trying to make any point.
@#1, The Other Lance
Eh, Scott Adams doesn’t actually write Dilbert. It’s all reader submissions. Which is why sites like Clients From Hell and Not Always Working seem vaguely… familiar after a while.
So-it comes down to how heinously unfair it is to have to ask for sex!
Or even to communicate on any level prior to sex. Can someone just get him a RealDoll that has ipod speaker in it’s head with “yes” playing on repeat? No more horror of ever having to communicate with another human being ever again.
I’m curious how/why he transmissions from whining about feminism into providing a “solution” to Islamist terrorism, but not curious enough to actually read through this guy’s horrid and disgusting idiocy.
Love Dilbert, at least the old ones. Used to follow Scott Adams, but he’s indeed to self-important to learn anything new.
@sethedenbaum #3: No, the problem with everyone. Try vegans, same shit.
@slithey tove #7: If that’s what Adams really means, he’s wrong: Islamism is not about preventing men to get laid, it’s about conformism, violence and control. Men are very much free to rape women and treat them like cattle.
slithey tove
By “access to women” he quite obviously does not mean ” you can have lots of contact with women and if you both fancy each other you can fuck”. Because that’s not what is usually meant by “access”. You have access to things you can use. And it’s also in context with his other statements where he laments that buying dnner doesn’t give hime the right to fuck the woman.*
*I always wonder how they find those “dates” where they’re supposed to act like out of a 1950’s movie. Oh, probably in a 1950’s movie because actual people like to keep their distance….
All the trigger warnings:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html
I can’t see the logic of his post. He tries to contrast patriarchy vs matriarchy and all the reasons why our pretend-patriarchy-actually-matriarchy is awful for men. Then he goes on to say that the ISIS/DAESH patriarchy is even worse? And the solution is for teenage boys to kill their leaders? WTF is he even saying? By his own logic of a matriarchy controlling all of the sex, I would expect to see the most terrorism in the US, not ISIS. Hey, Scott, maybe patriarchy is the problem, ever think of that?
Please elaborate on this.
Stopped reading Dilbert when Adams went off on his Alternative Medicine kick about a decade or so, ago.
Let’s not forget, he’s Marketing, not Engineering. At least Engineers see 256 shades of grey, and some even start to see color as they get older. And, there is some Learning ’cause they’re always ending up having to solve problems where they don’t always know The Answer, or The Method, ahead of time.
Casual reminder Scott “God among Geniuses” Adams is a New Age nutter who thinks evolution is bunk.
http://www.insolitology.com/rloddities/dilbert.htm
@4: “Stirring the pot,” huh? And here I thought the new party line is all his assorted mouthfarts are merely “thought experiments.”
It should come as a surprise to precisely no one that Adams is completely gaga over Trump, predicting his hero will win in one of the greatest landslides in history. He started off very coy — “I have no idea who would be the best president, I just think Trump is better at playing mind games with the voters than his opponents are” (which may even be true). Then, once he’d built up lots of interest with his “linguistic wizard” theory, he shifted to a “Trump will be the greatest president EVAR” schtick.
Disgusting.
Also, on the subject of Alice —
She seems to be the culmination of a tradition in cartoons where violence isn’t supposed to be particularly funny, unless it’s a woman hitting a man, in which case it’s uniformly hilarious.
Maybe it’s time we get rid of that.
erratum:
correction: [replace the above stricken-threw with the following]:
[just trying to be a bit more accurate]
Hey, maybe Adams is this guy.
It’s also strictly controlled by the man, unless you think that dating etiquette entitles the woman to assault him if she’s in the mood and he’s not.
Yes, this is what we call “hospitality.” Most of us do this even for guests we’re not planning to sleep with. Although apparently Scott Adams mocks them for being uncomfortably cold and offers them a glass of Windex.
For those not wanting to wallow in Adam’s post, there are some other turds embedded in there that I wouldn’t want to spare you:
1/ The wage gap is non existent. Well-informed feminists agree with him on that (I would assume he is referring to CHS and other “equity feminists”).
2/ It’s not his fault if he has to talk over women in meetings (wouldn’t you just love having him as a colleague?)
3/ The USA is a matriarchy.
4/ He says some incredibly misandist stuff, making broad generalisations about men which make them look like primitive one-track beasts.
5/ “In this country, any solution to a problem that involves killing millions of adult men is automatically on the table.” No comment.
6/ And some abhorrent apologia for anti-women spree killers, also quoted by David:
So I can safely say Adams is now indistinguishable from MRA hate mongers like AVfM and RoK.
@23, Anton Mates
It’s also strictly controlled by the man, unless you think that dating etiquette entitles the woman to assault him if she’s in the mood and he’s not.
But that would imply that men at some point don’t want sex, which these MRA yahoos seem to think is an impossibility. It’s part and parcel that these types seem to think men are ALWAYS sexually receptive.
Blerg…must used the wrong tags when trying to quote.
Matrim
like this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
@27 chigau
I know, I’ve done it dozens of times. I just haven’t posted here in a while so I used the tags from the website I’ve been using most frequently. Thanks, though.
No, strawcastling. Don’t do that.
Well, I couldn’t resist and tried to read the original blog post. The quote I was remembering when I posted was “Now compare our matriarchy (that we pretend is a patriarchy) with the situation in DAESH-held territory. That’s what a male-dominated society looks like.” Prior to that quote he spent 5 paragraphs on why life sucks as a man because women have all of the power. But then after that he’s almost trying to argue that patriarchy is worse, I think? What I was trying to say, the whole post is muddled and illogical on top of the misogyny and sexism.
@30,
Yes, apparently his point is that matriarchies are great, and we should put women in charge of even more things, because whenever men are in charge they start chopping peoples’ heads off. At least, I think that’s what he’s saying. It isn’t very clear.
Consent is an AND gate: The output is only ‘1’ if both inputs are ‘1’ at the same time. If you stick your dick in one of the inputs, then the output will always equal the other input.
The sad part is that these antifeminists don’t always have their dicks stuck in it, so they should be entirely able to see this supposed injustice as a smudge on their bro coloured glasses. Alas, they only think about “access to women[‘s bodies]” when they’re horny.
And a cartoon that would be horrifying if Adams drew it, but for people who find his ideas ridiculous might actually be funny:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=1637