The Paris attacks have inspired cartoonist and opinion-haver Scott Adams to reflect on some of the true injustices in the world today.
Specifically, the fact that in the United States, men often pay for dates, yet cannot have sex with women without getting their permission first.
In a blog post that is incoherent even by his standards, Adams compares the male-dominated societies of the Middle East with what he describes as “female-dominated countries” like the US.
In his mind, American men live in a matriarchal dystopia in which women force men to pay for dinner and open car doors for them:
When I go to dinner, I expect the server to take my date’s order first. I expect the server to deliver her meal first. I expect to pay the check. I expect to be the designated driver, or at least manage the transportation for the evening. And on the way out, I will hold the door for her, then open the door to the car.
Weird, because I’ve literally never had a date like that. And even if all this were true, as a general thing, it wouldn’t be proof that the US is “female-dominated.” Chivalry is part of patriarchy, not proof of matriarchy.
When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman.
Er, dude, that’s how sex works. Both sex partners have to agree to it, otherwise it’s rape. And men have veto power when it comes to sex just like women do. Women aren’t allowed to force themselves on unwilling partners any more than men are.
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.
What a romantic fellow, proposing to a woman even though she’s some kind of spoiled princess who has preferences about room temperature and refuses to have sex when she doesn’t want to have sex.
Also, Adams wants everyone to know that when he talks over women in meetings, it’s not that he’s a sexist, it’s just that women talk too much.
Women have made an issue of the fact that men talk over women in meetings. In my experience, that’s true. But for full context, I interrupt anyone who talks too long without adding enough value. If most of my victims turn out to be women, I am still assumed to be the problem in this situation, not the talkers.
But really, the problem is that ladies just won’t shut up amirite fellas high five!
The alternative interpretation of the situation – that women are more verbal than men – is never discussed as a contributing factor to interruptions. Can you imagine a situation where – on average – the people who talk the most do NOT get interrupted the most?
Uh, yes. Because that’s not just a hypothetical “situation.” It’s the way the world actually works.
I don’t know if the amount of talking each person does is related to the amount of interrupting they experience, or if there is a gender difference to it, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis.
Unfortunately for Adams, this is a hypothesis that’s been repeatedly disproved. Men talk more than women in meetings, yet are more likely to interrupt women than women are to interrupt them.
Weird how Adams, who thinks of himself as a rational sciencey guy, didn’t even bother to do the 30 seconds of Googling that would have shown that his “reasonable hypothesis” was a crock.
Speaking of weirdness, Adams goes on to suggest that he might turn to terrorism if no one gives him a hug. Literally.
So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn’t religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I’m not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.
NOTE TO SELF: Do not invite Scott Adams to any party without also inviting this dude:
Or maybe don’t invite Adams to any parties at all.
I understood it just fine. 🙂
What does the koala gif mean?
I haven’t read the comments yet (yes, even now because I have a lot of catching up to do), but in response to the last point about hugging: he doesn’t have to hug people he wants to have sex with. Doesn’t he have friends and family he can hug? I know that there may be reservations about hugging other men due to toxic masculinity, but shouldn’t he have some female relative to hug (mom maybe?)?
I genuinely don’t see how. Because Dave doesn’t want to hug Scott Adams? Because it’s a joke that involves two men hugging?
Went to Adams’ blog because apparently I want to give myself a headache. He’s got two new posts up, both as part of his “rationality engine,” which is this thing where he sets up a test that relies on the assumption that his premises are true, and then he pats himself on the back when it confirms his conclusions.
The first is from yesterday, and it claims that women have more political power in the US because more of them are registered to vote than men. The other is from today, addressing claims in the comments of the first one that more political capital is in the hands of powerful people, overwhelmingly men. Adams agrees, but says these men aren’t necessarily working against the goals of women. It’s interesting that sheer number of female voters is enough to prove that women have more political power, but suddenly when it comes to powerful men, numbers aren’t enough.
Yeah, well, that’s Scott Adams for you. So convinced of his own brilliance that he would rather rely on his own suppositions than any sort of real-world data. God, he’s insufferable.
I left out that he also talks about his experiences with “gender discrimination” in the workplace, when he wasn’t promoted because they already had a bunch of white dudes in positions of power and they wanted to diversify. Yes, that’s right, HE was the victim in this situation.
Man, Scott Adams totally punked me. I thought for a moment he had said something pro-feminist.
On the topic of abortion rights, he says that men should stay out of the debate and let women decide. His logic is that women are equally smart as men, but more informed, and that there are enough of them to sustain a vigorous debate, so there is no benefit to getting men involved.
Sounds nice, right? Here’s the catch: it turns out that he doesn’t mean “men should adopt the female majority opinion (pro-rights) as their own and become pro-choice activists; they should basically pretend the issue doesn’t exist. Therefore, men should not treat Carson’s or Cruz’ rabid “pro-life” rhetoric as a point for or against them, because to vote on that issue would constitute joining the debate.
@Orion | November 25, 2015 at 10:07 pm
Did he really said the stuff in the 3rd paragraph or is this just your conjecture?
See, I took that last bit as “if we have a party, we’re inviting this dude but not Adams”. Prolly biased by every comment here saying that.
He really said it, though I’m having trouble finding the article now.
So David is simply saying if you’re going to have Adams around, you better make sure he has a supply of hugs, or else things may go south. No homophobia… Just making sure Adams has hugs. ( And who better than someone offering free hugs?)
@S.F.H.C.: OMG-The exponential increase in anti-abortion provisions post-2009 is simply *horrifying*.
Does he get all his relationship ideas from tired old sitcoms? Hell, has he ever had a girlfriend at all? Adams comes off more and more like that misanthropic nerd who tries to compensate for his bitterness and offputting behavior by acting like everyone is too jealous of him to see the real him underneath the repulsive exterior. If he was 20 years younger, he’d be wearing a fedora and a doritos-crusted neckbeard. High school is over, Adams. It has been for a good long while.
@H.M | November 26, 2015 at 1:27 am
It is possible to have a different take on gender issues than WHTM and have girlfriend(s).
Do you think that Adams’ “take” on (ie. complete ignorance of) gender issues is the only dissenting view that contradicts the WHTM hivemind?
Sure, people who are not feminists have romantic relationships, but saying that you’re going to start shooting people if women don’t hug you, isn’t really a good a place to start a relationship. It shows scary levels of entitlement to women’s bodies and their time. It shows a limited understanding of how relationships work. A statement like this indicates that Adams is interested in only what he can get from a woman, not what he can give to her. He is not interested in a give-and-take type of relationship, where both parties benefit. He wants attention from women, but he doesn’t want to have to put in any effort. If that’s what he’s looking for in a relationship, I’m not surprised that he hasn’t found it.
@Aris I’m also wondering if Adam really said that thing on the 3rd paragraph. But as per @Orion reply, he said that but it’s quite hard to prove it now.
So Scott Adams is advocating Christian sharia law?
“Texas GOP lawmaker: ‘Rape is non-existent in marriage, take what you want’”
Good to know.
So true. Its also the reason why I have a job. I run a high class escort agency and if men didn’t need to have sex then this agency wouldnt exist.
Adams is right about EVERYTHING! Whoever wrote this rejoinder (most likely a man hating and UGLY member of the matriarchy or an effete “male” limp wrist) obviously hates men and does’nt want us to have ANYTHING! All these weirdo expectations placed on males are flea/male constructs that women are too gutless, cheap, and cowardly to observe THEMSELVES! Whoever scribbled this vitriolic and man hating diatribe will need a life time supply of Glade air freshener if they are going to live up there!!