Categories
antifeminism chivalry citation needed dude you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about matriarchy rape culture scott adams

Scott Adams: We live in a matriarchy because men have to get permission for sex

Matriarchy in action?
Matriarchy in action?

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:

Capturefreehugs

Or maybe don’t invite Adams to any parties at all.

322 replies on “Scott Adams: We live in a matriarchy because men have to get permission for sex”

I only am curious about one thing–did Adams become full-on sexist, racist asshat before or after he became a complete narcissist? Because the latter can be pegged to the Dilbert Principle–it got a fairly strong support, and his ego grew ten times larger practically overnight; ever since then, his quality output has been downhill, simply because no one in his circle tells him when he’s failing, and he has enough wealth and privilege to ignore everyone else.

Also, he’s a vocal Trump supporter.

When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman.

Has anybody ever complained about this and not turned out to be a rapist?

A woman who puts out for treats is called certain despicable things by these types. A woman who receives treats and doesn’t put out is called these other despicable things. A woman who pays her own way is a castrating feminist. A woman who pays for the man is a desperately unattractive old maid. A woman who simply lets a man alone must be a lesbian. A woman who wants children is a sperm trap. A woman who doesn’t is unnatural. There is, in short, no woman they don’t despise… so why don’t they think about some other subject? I am bemused by their obsession with human beings they hate.

Ah, this brings back memories. Scott Adams being a douchebag was what originally brought me to WHTM.

Scott Adams has the amazing superpower of fooling everyone into thinking he’s witty when he’s actually just a douchebag. He passed this power on to Bill Maher.

Adams is kinda a shit human being. And, realistically, in certain measurable ways, none too bright (outside that narrow talent at drawing an increasingly vapid, repetitive zombie of a strip, and, let’s face it, making good money at that and merchandising). Not the first such indication, this. My current anxiety is that, allegedly, he actually laughs at Pastis’ ‘Pearls Before Swine’. Or so says one of that latter strip’s promo page things…

Now Pastis, for all that his strip does contain some horrible people, seems so far as I can work out to be a decent sorta guy. I feel like I should warn him: try to find better endorsements. Like maybe some non-clueless asshole ones…

And then there’s that anxiety. I like something Adams likes. So what just might be wrong with _me_?

If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty.

Wait…didn’t he just finish saying that he is in that situation? Does that mean that he is already wearing an explosive vest?

I think that, in this case, we can apply the standard caption usable for a different set of cartoons, namely The New Yorker: “Christ, what an asshole.”

For a rational sciencey guy, Scott Adams is really really awful at logic. “I like X more than Y. Therefore, if I have no X, I’ll probably start doing Y!” Yeah, that makes… flawless sense…

When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman.

One time, I wanted to have sex and my partner didn’t! Therefore, I have concluded that access to sex is strictly controlled at all times by brown-haired people who are 5’2” and have grey eyes. LOGIC.

I didn’t really get what he was trying to say with that article. It seemed both misogynist and misandrist at the same. He almost flat out says that a patriarchal society is harmful to men, but really only because it keeps us from having sex. He seems to think that a matriarchy where men serve women is the best way for societies to function, but appears to be a little miffed about that fact. Very weird article.

In my experience, it’s the partner with the lower libido who mostly ends up controlling how often sex happens, and that ain’t always the woman. However, men can talk about what huge horndogs they are without being slutshamed, so you hear about that side a lot more than when the balance goes the other way.

Katjapants: Good on you because more than a little of his misogynistic bullshite has managed to find its way into his comics since he started opening his mouth.

I have been keeping a side-eye on them and he’s always written the females in his comics as unreasonable, illogical harpies that are cruel to all of the pathetic, loser men seen in the comics.

This is something that’s managed to escape a lot of his fans. That or they actually think he’s funny.

…wow. At one point, I thought this one sexist post he made (that was the only one I knew of at the time) was satirical, from the sheer Onion-level-seemingly-purposeful-stupidity. (I generally like the Onion, but that is one of the things they do.)

I know better now.

I had a point at one point, I think. Something about Poe’s Law. Oh well.

Reblogged this on The Monster's Ink and commented:
Oh, dear, Scott Adams is still talking.

I would like to add that, in addition to the scientifically observed fact that men talk more than women, AND men interrupt women more than vice versa, it’s not surprising that Adams thinks women talk more and thus deserve to be interrupted more. He thinks women talk too much and contribute too little because he’s a sexist asshat who doesn’t want to hear what women have to say.

Seriously, though, interrupting is obnoxious. Talking too long and saying too little is also obnoxious, but talking over people is really bad manners and surely there are better ways to keep a discussion on track.

I only am curious about one thing–did Adams become full-on sexist, racist asshat before or after he became a complete narcissist? Because the latter can be pegged to the Dilbert Principle–it got a fairly strong support, and his ego grew ten times larger practically overnight; ever since then, his quality output has been downhill, simply because no one in his circle tells him when he’s failing, and he has enough wealth and privilege to ignore everyone else.

A casual survey suggests that he veered off sometime in the mid-90’s, as your theory suggests. That was around when he introduced Tina the Tech Writer and Dogbert’s New Ruling Class, the newsletter that was literally nothing but smugness about he and his fans are better than everyone else.

But I suspect he may have been a smug tech bro before that, he just didn’t have the platform and security to let it all hang out.

I’m devastated that Scott Adams has turned out to be a raving misogynist! Am I behind the times? Or is this more recent? As a professional cubicle-dweller, the Dilbert cartoons have always been a source of much hilarity and a fun reflection on the more difficult elements of corporate life. I haven’t read them much of late, probably not at all for a few years, but wow! Don’t think I can read them at all any more 🙁

On the blog post: Adams missed one thing. The convention on a date such as he describes (and which, thank goodness, exists now only in the fevered imaginings of anti-feminists) is for the man to place the order for both of them AND pick out suitable beverages. I guess, in his twisted world view, this could be seen as more evidence of men doing the work for women. Personally, I’ve always preferred to speak for myself, and anyone who tries to choose my food and alcohol for me is at risk of a quick stab in the back of the hand with my fork!

OK, firstly I want to invite that free hug guy to *my* next party because wow. It’s my birthday next month and he is more than welcome 😉

Also, yeah I’ve literally only been on one date like that and the whole vibe of the date was creepy. And that was with the guy that then stalked me for several weeks until I had to go to the police. The rest of my dates have included archery class, pottery painting, gigs, a fireworks display with a bottle of wine, a picnic, a lock-in at a pub where the guy worked, the London tombs, I’ve even invited a guy I’m kind of dating at the moment to come and help out at the homeless shelter I volunteer at. Because I think dates should reflect who you are as a person and show each other your interests. To me, a date like Adams described just screams “I have no imagination, there’s not much to my personality and I’m trying to buy access to your vagina which proves I value you as little more than a walking hole for pleasing my penis.”

Wow, I never knew he was such a condescending misogynist. Took me a little while to go peruse the WHTM archives and discover the sheer ridiculousness of his behavior.

Ugh, I try to separate the art from the artists but I don’t think I can ever read Dilbert again.

Wait is Scott Adams the guy who said “women are like children”? I knew he was sexist but dang what a sick, narcissistic fugget (f***+nugget) wanting to become a killer terrorist because he’s not getting laid or hugs whenever he wants? I love hugs too but just wow.

I never liked his comics they’re not even funny they’re just filled with bitterness that’s my opinion though.

I’ll defiantly hug that guy in the photo. ☺️

I donated a bunch of books to my local library today, including a few by Scott Adams. Now I wish I’d just trashed them. He doesn’t deserve circulation among the masses.

Like most comic strips, Dibert is occasionally still pretty funny but really seems to have been wearing out its welcome.

It seemed both misogynist and misandrist at the same.

This is true of everything every MRA has ever said.

@weirwoodtreehugger
“He’s right though. Violence and war did not actually exist before feminism.”

That’s not actually what he claims. He says that patriarchal societies are actually more violent and worse for most men because most men have less sex in them. He’s actually supposedly making an argument for our current western society, he’s just so blind to privilege and bias that he insists it’s a matriarchy.

On a personal note, I just had the very very very rare kind of (heated) internet argument that ends with someone actually changing their mind. My spontaneous reaction was wtf? I guess people can be convinced through reason and arguments sometimes? I’m flabbergasted.

Dhag85
Congrats on your victory, Furrinati Warrior. Your name will be in the Fempire Hall of Fame. We are one step closer to the beautiful utopia: Gynocracy, this pleases the Fempire greatly.

@fruitloopsie
Yeah I posted about it here a few weeks ago. He was sending me up to 70 text messages a day, I blocked him on all social media but he was still texting and calling my phone. I tried blocking his number but he started calling me all through the night from a withheld number. I went to the police, they spoke to him and told him if he didn’t stop they would arrest him. He hasn’t contacted me since then. Around 5 weeks now I think.

It’s not serious with the guy I’m seeing (which he knows) and I’m seeing more than one guy casually because I’m not really up for commitment right now, which I’m sure makes me a hypergamous slut or something in the eyes of the manosphere despite the fact that all parties involved are making an informed consensual decision. I’m going to see him tomorrow though because he’s an amateur wrestler and he’s wrestling tomorrow.

“When we get home, access to sexa woman’s body is strictly controlled by the woman.”

Because a woman’s body ≠ sex. Sex is something people do, dipshit.

@NicolaLuna

As a straight manboy myself, I’d like to add I would also hug the free hugs guy. Holy shit.

@SFHC

Ewwww. These guys have to make up their minds – is it “men are natural rapists” or “#NotAllMen”? Can’t have it both ways.

(By the way, if it sounds like this moron annoys me more than other morons, it’s because I was a big fan back in the ’90s, even taking my now-long-binned Dogbert plushie to school every day. Toppled heroes. =P)

@Fruitloopsie

Haha. :p

Although the argument was not directly to feminism. It was over the usefulness of gender neutral pronouns, which for some reason is an incredibly controversial topic here.

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.

What the shit? For one thing, how fucking entitled can you be to say “if I am not provided with regular sex ‘hugs’, I might just start mmurdering people”?

For another, this logic is completely incomprehensible.
Point A: “In western society, women control all access to sex and expect men to like, respect them and shit before spreading their legs, wah.”
Point B: “But in middle eastern societies, women are treated like chattel, and men aren’t expected to kowtow to them!”
Point C: “If I was in a situation where my ability to have sex- er, get ‘hugs’- was limited, then I’d probably start murdering people too!”

The obvious conclusion here is that it’s men in “matriarchical” western societies that should be trying to murder everyone, and the Scott Adams himself already has an explosive vest strapped to himself.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if a woman tried to initiate sex with one of these guys. They seem to think that they need to “convince” a woman to sleep with them (which is creepy), but they don’t seem to realize that sometimes we actually do want to have sex. We just don’t want to have sex with guys who don’t consider us to be full human beings.

@DodoHunter

I actually don’t think he was arguing for the legalization of rape, although it’s possible I misread the blog post. This is how I understand his “reasoning”:

1. It is natural for men to rape.
2. It’s natural for women to not want to be raped.
3. Society has decided that male natural behavior is “bad” and female natural behavior is “good”.
4. We must hold men accountable for these behaviors, or society would collapse.
5. But ultimately men should be “chemically castrated”, or they will become depressed because of not being allowed to rape.

Ta-dah. What a fucking idiot.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs

The article you linked doesn’t say anything about legalizing rape. Mr. Adams does make the absurd claim that men’s natural desires are illegal in our society, but he doesn’t support those “natural desires” being made legal. In fact he claims that those natural desires would lead to chaos if they were legalized.

@Catalpa

He actually claims that “matriarchal” societies are better, basically because it’s easier to convince women to have sex with you than it is to convince other men to let you have sex with women that they “own.”

But he spends a large amount of his post trying to prove that we live in a matriarchy, using mra “proof” like “men have to pay for dates.” So David is pointing out the obvious flaws in that “logic.”

The article you linked doesn’t say anything about legalizing rape. Mr. Adams does make the absurd claim that men’s natural desires are illegal in our society, but he doesn’t support those “natural desires” being made legal. In fact he claims that those natural desires would lead to chaos if they were legalized.

Well sure, he doesn’t actually say “rape should be legal,” but he does admit that he would like to constantly rape people, which is surely reprehensible enough on its own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.