Mar 072011
 

Scott Adams, the author of Dilbert, wrote a post today about men’s rights where among other things he calls MRAs pussies.  After he wrote it, Adams decided to delete the post.  Here is what he wrote:

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.

I just did a little test to see if I knew what pajama bottoms I was wearing without looking. I failed.

There’s so much I could say about it but what Adams wrote speaks for itself.

  39 Responses to “Scott Adams Deletes Post (Which You Can Read Here) Where He Calls MRAs Pussies”

  1. This is actually a first. I have not seen this angle of ‘take it like a man’ before.

    Scott Adams not just thinks women are inferior, but that they are SO inferior that men really have to withstand hardships for them in a way one would for a 4-year-old child (he says as much).

    For the record, I don’t think women are nearly as inferior as Scott Adams thinks they are. I do think they are capable enough that they should be held to adult levels of accountability.

    Interestingly, he does seem to recognize that the legal system is biased towards men. He does not claim that women suffer from a ‘pay gap’ either.

    Good news : Yet another visible person has been forced to recognize the existence of the anti-misandry movement. Perhaps the flyer campaign played a small part in that.

    • It’s vaguely similar to conservative female supremacist argument that men need to man up and “lead”/”take care of” women but when they say it there’s at least some attempt at claiming that women are secondary to men (however halfhearted that is). Given that Scott Adams politics are liberal I would think that he would not go for a right wing pedestalizer argument like that. But really what Adams is saying is far beyond that. I don’t know of any other case where someone said so explicitly that women should have the privileges of an adult but the responsibilities of a child. Even if someone thinks that, they will avoid saying that because of the obvious logical problems they will have when that argument gets challenged.

      I agree that women should be held to adult levels of accountability but that almost isn’t the issue. The issue is that you can’t have it both ways. Either women are adults or children. There is no in between.

      The reason why Scott Adams wrote a post on mens rights was because it won a poll on his website. It won for a reason and I’m sure URLs @ Urinals played a part in that. Speaking of that one thing I’m trying to do is post flyers in places where it will be seen by people working in national security related government agencies. While I have the security clearance to get into the NSA and CIA HQs, I don’t have a reason to be there except in rare cases so that’s a no go. What I’m trying is other places outside of their offices that they may go to frequently.

    • You have to be smarter when reading this article. He is not saying women are like “4-year olds or the mentally handicapped” and he even goes out of his way to explain. He says the strategy is disturbingly similar. Anyone who does not agree with that has never been married or in a serious committed relationship with a real woman. (hippies and emotionally castrated men aside) He is basically saying there are trade-offs and one of them is men have less power than women actually.The illusion is that men are in charge or make more money or have all the power positions. The reality is, the women behind the scenes (wife, mistress, high-priced hooker) hold what every (straight) man has to have and will do almost anything for. Ask a rock-star why he wanted to become a rock-star. What is one of the greatest perks of power? Presidents who settle for fat interns are just being lazy when they could easily have Marilynn Monroe but both gave them what they needed and risked everything just for a little fling. Why? Because the women are so weak and inferior the men had to risk it? That doesn’t make sense.

  2. PMAFT,

    Check this out :
    http://theantifeminist.com/founder-of-world-transhumanism-aims-for-women-only-governments-within-25-years/

    ..and then check out these Spearhead comments :
    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/07/title-you-are-a-scientist-and-engineer-of-mens-rights/#comment-77247

    We may need to significantly widen the berth we give to ‘transhumanists’. But note that this high-profile ‘tranny’ actually posted an article on The Spearhead last week (about female genital mutilation), so he does read The Spearhead.

  3. Problem is the path of least resistence leads to grass huts.

  4. “we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us.”

    And we’ve paid a heavy price for it.

  5. TFH wrote:
    Scott Adams not just thinks women are inferior, but that they are SO inferior that men really have to withstand hardships for them in a way one would for a 4-year-old child (he says as much).

    It’s the “path of least resistance”. Perhaps Scott can run this little gem by Charlie Sheen, whose children were just taken from him. Of course I don’t believe he has the courage to do any such thing. His deleting his screed
    against MRAs shows he has a yellow streak a yard wide, which is ironic since he was calling them “pussies”.

    For the record, I don’t think women are nearly as inferior as Scott Adams thinks they are. I do think they are capable enough that they should be held to adult levels of accountability.

    If we assume for argument’s sake that they are, then we cannot allow them to vote or put them in positions of power.

    Interestingly, he does seem to recognize that the legal system is biased towards men. He does not claim that women suffer from a ‘pay gap’ either.

    Of course he doesn’t, he knows better. He worked in the feminized corporatocracy for many years before starting his “Dilbert” comic strip. He knows damn well that women are treated as a privileged class there, not that they’re “discriminated against”.

    Good news : Yet another visible person has been forced to recognize the existence of the anti-misandry movement. Perhaps the flyer campaign played a small part in that.

    Yes, there’s definitely been a big uptick in that department. Before it was mostly feminist bloggers like Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti screeching about “MRAs”. Now other types of bloggers and media outlets are starting to write about them.

    • And the Amanda Marcottes of the world are desperately trying to keep control of the discourse.

      “No, no, no guys, you see, they are very bad men and here’s why …”

  6. .. it would be real justice if women sued him for putting women in row with mentally handicapped.

    Too much to discuss, my long story short:
    Nobody gives POWER to mentally handicapped. It might be deadly dangerous.

  7. My guess is that he deleted it not because of men complaining but because of women complaining.

    In any case, the post, while it was up, was quite telling. Here we have a guy who is of liberal sensibilities and presumably a supporter of political feminism, at least, basically admitting that women are treated better at almost all levels of society than men are, but that he doesn’t care as long as he is personally getting laid (i.e., having his way with the Queen while the pawns — other guys — are getting smushed).

    That right there is the essence of why no MRM has ever credibly emerged. Even the guys who do see the problems (and Adams clearly does) do not give a shit about it, and celebrate the fact that they don’t give a shit.

    Guys like Maximus need to internalize the fact that there are a LOT of Scott Adams types out there among men in general. A lot.

    • “My guess is that he deleted it not because of men complaining but because of women complaining.”

      Yeah that is my thought as well.
      When I visited the link, there was a long comment by a woman(?) admonishing him for using “pussies”.
      She also said that men had lower lifespans because they smoked more, and because women didn’t have the social sanction to smoke.
      Kinda amusing how she rolled off a truth without knowing it herself.

    • Guys like Scott Adams are a huge problem. The only way he’s going to learn is if feminism turns on him. He probably won’t learn anything then if he thinks that lowered standards for female firemen have something to do with men’s rights.

      Maximus’s problems aren’t limited to realizing how many Scott Adamses are out there. He needs to realize that chest beating about being a “real (Christian) patriarch” goes nowhere quickly and worrying about what a fictitious bogeyman supposedly thinks will make you blind to what is really happening to you.

      • Actually, Adams did already get kicked in the butt pretty good by feminism. His earlier Dilbert comics always had a subtle streak of misogyny to them.

        Adams went through two jobs at two different corporations, and got put on the management “fast track” at both because he was pretty smart. Both times, he got told he’s not getting promoted because there are already too many men in management at these companies and that they’re saving space for women.

        He left the second company after starting Dilbert, and eventually grew that into the modest empire that it is. At the end of it all, the best woman this accomplished man could get, after 40+ years of getting screwed by feminism and getting no help towards his accomplishments, the best he could get is a single mom with three kids. That’s the real joke.

        Likely, he’s accepted his lot in life and is pretty satisfied with getting the calved-out bajingo of his wife and building her a new house. If he’s really lucky, then the kids will be grown up by the time Shelley (I think her name is) divorces him. If not, he’ll lose half of Dilbert, half his restaurants, his house, and pay her support for his troubles. We’ll see then what his thoughts about men’s rights are.

    • “My guess is that he deleted it not because of men complaining but because of women complaining.”

      I doubt it. Dilbert mainly appeals to a narrow audience: beta males. He was afraid the piece would drive them away.

    • @novaseeker: Your profile pic says “The truth will set you free”. I disagree. If you are confessing to murder, the truth will do quite the opposite.
      On an unrelated note, I say that mens’ and womens’ rights activists are full of BS. Life ain’t fair, and screaming injustices & statistics is going to do nothing to help your case. Women don’t have equal pay, but men die earlier. Women are still told to stay in the kitchen, but men still have to hold doors for them. And if you really think that women have it better than men, you can always change teams.

  8. One thing about Scott Adams is that he is beta to the extreme.

    Over here, he essentially tells men to give in to beta tests….

    Even in the 90s, a running theme in his dilbert books was that ‘he has no idea how some men manage to have sex with women’…. He assumed the female mind was as much of a mystery to all men as it was to him.

  9. Where did he write the post and how can we contact him?

  10. I think Adams took the tone he did because of two reasons:

    1. His wealth and status (and thus far, success in the mating game) insulating him from the reality on the ground.

    2. Residual beta thought patterns from the days when he was a nobody.

    That said, I think he took the post down because he perhaps started to reconsider the MRA viewpoint, and some of its ideas.

    This is how our movement spreads, gentlemen.

    We reach out to thoughtful men who can sense that something is amiss, but can’t quite articulate what it is. We unmask that phantom for them and show them the way forward. They adopt our message and continue the work of setting things right.

    There is a deep river of apprehension, disillusion, and angst flowing within the hearts and minds of western men. Our task is to harness the flow of this great river and redirect its power against its rightful targets.

    I am going to keep pushing until the MRA movement rages like the Mississippi, and washes away the corruption that we face.

    Maybe we got a new ally in Scott Adams, maybe not. It doesn’t matter. Whether he acknowledges it or not, we are fighting for him and the rest of civilization, and we are winning converts every day.

    Drop by drop, this stream continues to flow…and grow.

    • I’m fairly certain that Scott Adams is not an ally. He has had an attitude of since he’s a rich white guy, all other white guys are well off if not rich. That is something that has permeated his writing far beyond anything he wrote about men’s rights.

      He did give us publicity and a lot of men are now aware of men’s rights who weren’t before. I have already gone beyond my previous daily hit count max and I’m well on the way to doubling it. While this increase won’t be all permanent, there’s still lots of men discovering the MRM for the first time and staying.

  11. [...] Anti-Feminist Tech recently posted a deleted blog post from “The Dilbert Blog”, the personal blog of Dilbert creator Scott Adams. Many of us are [...]

  12. Fairness is an illusion. It’s unobtainable in the real world.

    Well, he has a point. The problem is that feminists, including manginas, want society to produce outcomes which are “fair” to womyn. Or at least insofar as womyn will benefit. Thus, womyn can serve in combat arms to enhance their careers in the military, but womyn will not be subject to draft registration.

    I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group.

    Feminists do in fact behave like spoiled children. They want it all, and want to both ways, and want it now.

    • As a chick, I know I’ma get some heat for even posting here, but *doesn’t care*. I agree with you, in all honesty. If chicks want ‘equal rights’ etc etc, they should have to:
      Register for Selective Service. (I did when I was 18, to help a scared male friend of mine get the courage to cough up his required slip.)
      Be allowed in front line combat.
      Use FMLA time for giving birth, no maternity leave allowed.
      Wear the traditional suit in the workplace, no skirts or girly pantsuits.
      Not wear makeup at work.
      Have no special treatment regarding female police officers, firefighters, EMTs, etc.
      Show this list to 90% of feminists and then sit back and laugh as they foam at the mouth and speak in tongues.
      However, I do have to agree with Scott on one thing: Stop being pussies.
      Stand up and fight for your rights. If you’re more qualified than the woman applicant you’re going up against, make it known. People raised such a stink when less qualified people were getting accepted to great colleges just because they were a minority that eventually we stopped Affirmative Action. Life should be about you getting what you deserve based on what you can do and what you are capable of, not what you have between your legs.

  13. [...] doesn't stop there. Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and author of an interesting political blog posted recently about the Men's Rights Movement in which he [...]

  14. THIS is what got a bunch of feminist groups pissed off? Sure, there’s some indelicate language there, but it’s clearly written in a tone of “This is my opinion, I have personal evidence for it, but not scientific evidence.”

    What, do you people just look for excuses to get angry?

  15. [...] http://www.antifeministtech.info/2011/03/scott-adams-deletes-post-where-he-calls-mras-pussies/ Share this:EmailPrintDiggFacebookRedditStumbleUpon Posted by Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech at 7:49 AM on 08/13/2011 [...]

  16. It’s funny how this is the one time where people thought Scott was being serious, when if you had read any of his other blog entries it would be blindingly obvious that it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously.

  17. I remember my father explaining to me when I was young that when the scales of any kind of inequality are tipped, it is understandable that they will initially weigh in favour of the previously opposed party before they are balanced, even from a young age I could see that this would be a natural occurrence and reaction to injustice and inequality. Coming from a family of extremely staunch female role models, I had to hold back the need to literally scream out loud at several points raised in this post. Where do I start?

    Baring in mind the writer’s attempt at humour, the points raised in his writing are misogynistic and unfounded. His generalisations towards women are just that, and are based lazily on averages, rather than actual research.

    The fact that female college attendance has overtaken males is not an inequity that has been deliberately caused by women against men. Men have always had the option of higher education, I’m at a loss to understand why it is anyone’s fault but their own if they chose not to take advantage of this choice. These women are merely exercising their right to learn, which should be celebrated.

    Women who expect to have a door opened for them are not the kind of women who hold a contemporary view of the battle of the sexes. These kinds of actions are all relative. The chances of a woman taking the lead in initiating a relationship (i.e. the kind of woman who asks a man out on a date), arguing over paying the bill at dinner, and also looking forward to an exciting career as a housewife is unlikely. Women these days are aware that we cannot have our cake and eat it to, and I for one don’t want to be expected to bake my cake to feed it to my husband either.

    His stating that male behaviour is discouraged while female behaviour is applauded is ridiculous. It is not the female behaviour that we applaud, it is the action of a person who has been unable to act a certain way purely because of their sex, being able to act in any way they desire which should be celebrated. Men have always applauded men, he may be correct in that aspect of his writing. A man who sleeps with many women is seen as a hero amongst his counterparts, but a woman in the same scenario is ostracised and labeled. But even so, when it comes to our rights we women tend to show a solidarity of sisterhood with one another – look at amazing organisations like Women’s Refuge.

    Scott Adams has suggested to sample a group of young men and young women to see if they will be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve the power of a top management job, although woman may answer more often than men that they are not willing to sacrifice having a family in place of a career, the Harvard Business Review article “Are women better leaders than men?” showed that every one of the 7280 leaders who took part in a survey believed it was the case. Therefore, although men may be more inclined to ditch the family scenario for a career, if they get to the top spot, they may not be able to act as effectively and efficiently as a woman (and she might just already be a mother). I would be interested to know whether these men in the writer’s non-scientific polling who are likely to trade family time for work even have the option of having families, as being a misogynistic career oriented sociopath isn’t exactly what we ladies look for in a prospective father for our children.

    Women are not trying to be treated differently by society, and we sure as hell are not doing so for the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped. On the contrary, being treated differently is exactly what we are trying to avoid. What my feminist forebears started and what we are attempting to continue, is the ability to be treated equally and with the respect we deserve as human beings, without any kind of justification based on our sex. When a man in front of me gets to a door, he can walk straight through it, and you can take me out to dinner – but the next one is on me.

    Fairness might be an illusion, but this is thanks to narrow-minded people like Scott Adams. I’m so happy for him that he can open his own jars (guess what, I can open mine too), and when he needs to lift that heavy box without help he should be really proud of himself. But just maybe, if what he was saying was so true, he wouldn’t have needed to pretend to be his own fan to defend himself against the backlash of this standpoint. I’ve seen pictures of Scott Adams, so I’m fairly certain that I could drag him from a burning vehicle. But the real question is, would I want to?

    • “The fact that female college attendance has overtaken males is not an inequity that has been deliberately caused by women against men. Men have always had the option of higher education, I’m at a loss to understand why it is anyone’s fault but their own if they chose not to take advantage of this choice.”

      You’re saying that the school systems were NOT radically redesigned in the 80′s to cope with something they called the “girl crisis” in which the same problems boys and men face in education were faced by girls and women, and that feminist women did NOT call for and initiate these changes? Math problems were NOT changed to word problems about Susie and Marie sharing apples so that girls could do the math that boys could already do?

      I think history would disagree with you.

      “Women these days are aware that we cannot have our cake and eat it to, and I for one don’t want to be expected to bake my cake to feed it to my husband either.”

      How about baking the cake from materials the man paid for and then sharing it with your husband? Most women don’t want to do that either.I don’t see a reason to think you’re any different with the kind of selfish attitude you display.

      “His stating that male behaviour is discouraged while female behaviour is applauded is ridiculous. It is not the female behaviour that we applaud, it is the action of a person who has been unable to act a certain way purely because of their sex, being able to act in any way they desire which should be celebrated.”

      Reading contextually, I gather you’re referring here to sexual licentiousness. Are you REALLY going to sit there and tell me that in America, women were ever legally restricted, or even socially restricted from acting like whores?

      No, I think what you mean to say is that we should pat a woman on the back for promiscuousness,just like we do with men. How much of an accomplishment is spreading your legs for someone who already wants to have sex with you?

      Do you realize that it isn’t sex at all that’s being applauded but the ability to get women to agree to have sex which men are applauding? How much sense then does it make to give women praise for contracting sexually transmitted diseases from a bunch of guys who already want to have sex with her? This is a lowered standard for success you are demanding,just like your sex demanded in the police services,just like you demanded in the military services,just like you demanded in the firefighting success. You need lowered standards to be as successful as men because you’re so equal. Fuck you. Either you make the cut or you don’t. No more gold stars for trying real hard.

      ” I would be interested to know whether these men in the writer’s non-scientific polling who are likely to trade family time for work even have the option of having families, as being a misogynistic career oriented sociopath isn’t exactly what we ladies look for in a prospective father for our children.”

      Go fuck yourself, you cunt. This is a men’s blog. You don’t waltz into OUR spaces and started dropping shaming language and charges of misogyny on random men. This is the ONE place where that will not be tolerated or applauded.

      “Women are not trying to be treated differently by society, and we sure as hell are not doing so for the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped.”

      Then what the fuck is title 9 and affirmative action for women about? Do you suppose that men have gender quotas,special enrollment programs,do you think people pay US to get into Engineering?

      We do it by the sweat of our brow.

      If you can’t-then GET THE FUCK OUT,BITCH!

      ” What my feminist forebears started and what we are attempting to continue, is the ability to be treated equally and with the respect we deserve as human beings,”

      Then you have got to be the stupidest group of human beings to ever disgrace the surface of this planet,what with VAWA,rape shield laws,sexual harassment legislation,and on and on and on.

      The things you do to move towards this “equality” make people HATE you. You cut in line, you have your boss arrested because he asks you to work late, you falsely accuse people of heinous crimes with impunity, you monopolize the issues of BOTH genders and completely negate a MAN’S right to choose in EVERY matter you can.

      You are a lying piece of shit and an IDIOT.

      • “just like you demanded in the firefighting success” should be “STANDARDS FOR success.”

        Got a bit ahead of myself.

  18. This is satire. Scott Adams is a satirist. Some people are taking this too literally.

  19. I’m not certain why everyone is offended by this. Reading Scott’s post it seemed like sarcasm to me. I think he was trolling for comedy and succeeded.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

%d bloggers like this: