Phooey, I liked "Dilbert"
Scott Adams, the writer of the "Dilbert" cartoon, made an oopsie that's been making the rounds on the Internet. Over at tinysprout's tumblr, you can find the text of a deleted post from his blog. He also reposted the text of the original along with an . . . explanation of why he took it down. I'm including both, just in case.
So, what was the oopsie? He wrote an entry about Men's Rights that halfway through said:
"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."
Aside from the gendered insult, not so bad, right? Everyone loves seeing MRA's getting mocked. Well, he went on with an unusual tactic: MRA's are in the right, but they should suck it up because women just can't be dealt with. They're like children, or people with disabilities who are also crazy/violent/something. Really.
"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."
He backpedals a bit to say that he doesn't think women are all like children or the mentally disabled, just that men should treat them all the same.
Anyways, he eventually deletes this entry and posts an explanation that it just wasn't meant for people besides his normal readers. The "explanation" is hard to parse, since he is very rambly and defensive, complaining that people just didn't get the context of the piece, and clearly not siding with the ebul feminist blogs that have been bothering him. He does give a cliff notes version:
"You can't expect to have a rational discussion on any topic that has an emotional charge. Emotion pushes out reason. That is true for all humans, including children, men, women, and people in every range of mental ability. The path of least resistance is to walk away from that sort of fight. Men generally prefer the path of least resistance."
Apparently there were just too many feelings around feminism and MRA's for anyone to talk about it rationally! Text-book example of a nerdy dude trying to make everyone else wrong. You see the same nerdy reaction with so many other issues. It makes me think of the "hyper-rational" fan arguments that Dwayne McDuffie mentioned.
There are write-ups about this in many places, and it's really bringing the (I wish they were) trolls out. The comments to this (otherwise very good) write-up at Comics Alliance go down hill fast. In particular, there are either a few people pretending to be Scott, or he actually is showing up to talk down to everyone who isn't as rational as he is. You can see him at Feminste, The Mary Sue, and Geek Feminism. I'm sure Scott or his dopplegangers can be found elsewhere, too.
Some of the write-ups out there also call him out for making the overly utilitarian and apathetic man versus the irrational and overly emotional woman comparison, and I'm wondering if any of the negative descriptions of men he made were intentional digs at the MRA's, or just a "lol misanthropy" thing he's doing. If the latter, that's definitely another nerdy thing that we need to stamp out. That way lies using "sheeple" seriously.
Let us continue to interrogate his sexism from the wrong perspective, folks.
(ETA: fixed capitalization and added the bit about sheeple)
So, what was the oopsie? He wrote an entry about Men's Rights that halfway through said:
"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."
Aside from the gendered insult, not so bad, right? Everyone loves seeing MRA's getting mocked. Well, he went on with an unusual tactic: MRA's are in the right, but they should suck it up because women just can't be dealt with. They're like children, or people with disabilities who are also crazy/violent/something. Really.
"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."
He backpedals a bit to say that he doesn't think women are all like children or the mentally disabled, just that men should treat them all the same.
Anyways, he eventually deletes this entry and posts an explanation that it just wasn't meant for people besides his normal readers. The "explanation" is hard to parse, since he is very rambly and defensive, complaining that people just didn't get the context of the piece, and clearly not siding with the ebul feminist blogs that have been bothering him. He does give a cliff notes version:
"You can't expect to have a rational discussion on any topic that has an emotional charge. Emotion pushes out reason. That is true for all humans, including children, men, women, and people in every range of mental ability. The path of least resistance is to walk away from that sort of fight. Men generally prefer the path of least resistance."
Apparently there were just too many feelings around feminism and MRA's for anyone to talk about it rationally! Text-book example of a nerdy dude trying to make everyone else wrong. You see the same nerdy reaction with so many other issues. It makes me think of the "hyper-rational" fan arguments that Dwayne McDuffie mentioned.
There are write-ups about this in many places, and it's really bringing the (I wish they were) trolls out. The comments to this (otherwise very good) write-up at Comics Alliance go down hill fast. In particular, there are either a few people pretending to be Scott, or he actually is showing up to talk down to everyone who isn't as rational as he is. You can see him at Feminste, The Mary Sue, and Geek Feminism. I'm sure Scott or his dopplegangers can be found elsewhere, too.
Some of the write-ups out there also call him out for making the overly utilitarian and apathetic man versus the irrational and overly emotional woman comparison, and I'm wondering if any of the negative descriptions of men he made were intentional digs at the MRA's, or just a "lol misanthropy" thing he's doing. If the latter, that's definitely another nerdy thing that we need to stamp out. That way lies using "sheeple" seriously.
Let us continue to interrogate his sexism from the wrong perspective, folks.
(ETA: fixed capitalization and added the bit about sheeple)