Dilbert Creator A Crazy Dolt

For over twenty years, newspaper comic strip Dilbert has told readers why office life is dull and pointless, often while embodying those attributes itself. Earlier this month, Scott Adams, the creator of the strip, posted a blog where he had some other things to tell readers.

What did he have to say? Let’s take a look at some highlights:

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.

Yep. Lower life expectancy sure is an example of the “unfair treatment of men”.

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.

Also, women drive like, but men drive like this.

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.

Uhm…

Well, maybe the paragraph I’ve seen quoted the most will pull all this together:

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.

Nope. Even worse.

Read the full thing here, reposted by someone else since Adams at least had the good sense to take this beast down from his own blog.

This reminds me of most every article any university paper has ever published with some jackass calling for a men’s centre. And I’ve never seen one who wasn’t a jackass. Every ill-conceived opinion piece I’ve seen never wants to men to feel comfortable with their masculinity and to better understand what that means; it’s always a way of undermining the importance of a women’s centre.

Laura Hudson at ComicsAlliance nails the big problems, including the fact that Adams is comparing things that have “have virtually no relationship to each other.” The more important point that she touches on is that Adams debases the men and women everywhere, because “dealing with men and women through the lens of tired, insulting stereotypes diminishes us all.” Read her full response.

Scott Adams – what a dolt.

Author: James Brotheridge

Contributing Editor with Prairie Dog.

8 thoughts on “Dilbert Creator A Crazy Dolt”

  1. I saw this on Feministe today. I love his comment that Dilbert blog readers are “immune to emotional distortion.” Awesome.

  2. @1: I really don’t think so. If it was meant as a satire it didn’t turn out a great one. Hell, it didn’t even turn out to be a decent one. A rambley screed on a personal blog does not good satire make, unless “Scott Adams” is some kind of performance art persona that’s just now coming to fruition.

  3. http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/03/24/scott-adams-to-mens-rights-activists-dont-bother-arguing-with-women-theyre-like-children/#comment-356576

    Is this an entire website dedicated to poor reading comprehension? I don’t think one of you understood the writing. You’re all hopping mad about your own misinterpretations.

    That’s the reason the original blog was pulled down. All writing is designed for specific readers. This piece was designed for regular readers of The Scott Adams blog. That group has an unusually high reading comprehension level.

    In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it. The same would be true if the topic were about gun ownership or a dozen other topics. As emotion increases, reading comprehension decreases. This would be true of anyone, but regular readers of the Dilbert blog are pretty far along the bell curve toward rational thought, and relatively immune to emotional distortion.

    I’ve written on the topic how you can’t mix incendiary images in the same piece without the readers’ brains treating the images as though they were connected, no matter how clearly you explain that they are not. My regular readers understand that I do that intentionally as part of the fun. When quoted out of context, the piece becomes dangerous.

    You can see that the comments about the piece were little more than name-calling. When confronted with that sort of reaction, would it be wiser to treat the name-callers as you might treat respected professors with opinions worthy of consideration, or should you treat the name-callers as you would angry children, by not debating and not taking it personally?

    You’re angry, but I’ll bet every one of you agrees with me.

    Scott Adams

  4. Ah yes, the old “I didn’t mean it in THAT way, and you’re too dumb to get it” defense. Next.

  5. Satire doesn’t have to be good to be worthy of the name. And, he made his point, or rather the excitable readers confirmed it.

Comments are closed.