First, a spot of history: Dilbert creator Scott Adams has a blog and lots of menfolk seem to enjoy reading it. Some of those menfolk asked him what he thinks about "Men's Rights" and he wrote a beyond-condescending post which can be summed us as "suck it up and pretend you care about the 'emotional realities' of other people so the bitches will shut up already and leave you alone except when you want to screw them." In a true moment of intellectual responsibility, Adams deleted it after it drew criticism. Of course, this is the Internet (Google Cache is a thing) and people who dislike misogyny in all forms--even cleverly disguised in the "it's common sense!" format--took exception to this especially crappy moment of asshattery. In fact, a post by Feministe guest blogger (and, interestingly, male person) David Futrelle actually warranted a response from Adams himself.*
You can read the comment response here, but the shorter Scott Adams is: "blah blah blah context blah blah blah misinterpretation blah blah blah you're all acting like children with no reading comprehension skillz." Because the best way to respond to feminist critique of your sexist crap pile of a post is to call them all irrational womenfolk with a bad case of "emotional distortion."
My problem with this whole exchange has less to do with the blatant misogyny of the post--it's hardly a revelation that there are sexist asshats on the Internet--and a lot more to do with his disingenuous charge of "misinterpretation" when people bothered to actually read between the lines of his post. It is intellectually dishonest to say that a "man's best strategy for dealing with each group [children and the mentally handicapped] is disturbingly similar" to dealing with women, all in the same breath as trying to claim that you are not comparing women to children and the mentally disturbed. Because, despite Adams' propensity to "not care about 90% of what's happening around [him]," other well-rounded humans, male and female, actually acknowledge that emotional AND intellectual responsiveness is key to a fully useful and successful method of societal interaction.
By assuming that women are to be "dealt with" in the same way a Rational Man might approach the inherently irrational and underdeveloped child or mentally handicapped person, Adams has made the comparison whether he wants to or not. No amount of saying "but that's not what I meant!" changes the fact that readers are individuals who make decisions about meaning and interpretation independent of authorial intent and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Now other readers can swoop in and make a case for the opposition, but Adams' opinion is hardly more or less relevant than the readers'. And brandishing the double-edged sword of authorial and male privilege is the most intellectually irresponsible response I can imagine to the blowback from a douchey MRA post.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Scott Adams is more interested in "having [his] way with the Queen" than actually caring about what she thinks or needs.
*I'll let you unpack the politics of Adams taking time to respond to exactly one posting on this matter, the one that just so happens to be written by a dude.
You can read the comment response here, but the shorter Scott Adams is: "blah blah blah context blah blah blah misinterpretation blah blah blah you're all acting like children with no reading comprehension skillz." Because the best way to respond to feminist critique of your sexist crap pile of a post is to call them all irrational womenfolk with a bad case of "emotional distortion."
My problem with this whole exchange has less to do with the blatant misogyny of the post--it's hardly a revelation that there are sexist asshats on the Internet--and a lot more to do with his disingenuous charge of "misinterpretation" when people bothered to actually read between the lines of his post. It is intellectually dishonest to say that a "man's best strategy for dealing with each group [children and the mentally handicapped] is disturbingly similar" to dealing with women, all in the same breath as trying to claim that you are not comparing women to children and the mentally disturbed. Because, despite Adams' propensity to "not care about 90% of what's happening around [him]," other well-rounded humans, male and female, actually acknowledge that emotional AND intellectual responsiveness is key to a fully useful and successful method of societal interaction.
By assuming that women are to be "dealt with" in the same way a Rational Man might approach the inherently irrational and underdeveloped child or mentally handicapped person, Adams has made the comparison whether he wants to or not. No amount of saying "but that's not what I meant!" changes the fact that readers are individuals who make decisions about meaning and interpretation independent of authorial intent and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Now other readers can swoop in and make a case for the opposition, but Adams' opinion is hardly more or less relevant than the readers'. And brandishing the double-edged sword of authorial and male privilege is the most intellectually irresponsible response I can imagine to the blowback from a douchey MRA post.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Scott Adams is more interested in "having [his] way with the Queen" than actually caring about what she thinks or needs.
*I'll let you unpack the politics of Adams taking time to respond to exactly one posting on this matter, the one that just so happens to be written by a dude.
