{"id":4448,"date":"2011-03-29T09:00:28","date_gmt":"2011-03-29T08:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.badreputation.org.uk\/?p=4448"},"modified":"2011-03-29T09:00:28","modified_gmt":"2011-03-29T08:00:28","slug":"scott-adams-tells-it-like-it-isnt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/badreputation.org.uk\/2011\/03\/29\/scott-adams-tells-it-like-it-isnt\/","title":{"rendered":"Scott Adams tells it like it isn’t."},"content":{"rendered":"

Oh dear. On the 7th of March, Dilbert<\/strong><\/a> creator Scott Adams wrote this post on his blog.<\/a> He then deleted it later.<\/p>\n

\"Photo<\/a>

Photo by Flickr user Ol.v!er, shared under a creative commons licence.<\/p><\/div>\n

Much has been said about his words, but a lot of the online discussion focuses on “I now think he’s a douche” and not on why the post should be regarded as offensive. Well, I’m pretty clear on why I find it offensive.<\/p>\n

In my posts for BadRep I have often expressed the sentiment that men have unique problems in society<\/a>, and that those problems are just as invisible as some feminist issues. I believe it’s true. I’ve also recently written a post which stated my feelings on the constant cry of “but what about the men?<\/a>” in response to feminist discussion. Short answer: if you look at the world and don’t see massive gender inequality harming women a lot more than men, and don’t think that reducing the gap (and aiming to eliminate these issues for everyone) would be a good thing, then I don’t want to know you.<\/p>\n

Scott Adams didn’t say that feminism was no longer needed, or that men have bigger problems than women. His post can be summed up in two parts:<\/p>\n

“Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men\u2019s rights:<\/p>\n

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Why would he say that – because he sees women’s rights as far more under attack? Er… no. He has this advice instead:<\/p>\n

“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\u2019s just easier this way for everyone. You don\u2019t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn\u2019t eat candy for dinner. You don\u2019t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don\u2019t argue when a women tells you she\u2019s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It\u2019s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Scott states that he’s not<\/em> comparing ‘women’ directly to ‘people with disabilities’ or children, but does advise his (male) audience to treat them all the same way – to take into account the “emotional realities of other people”.<\/p>\n

And this is where most online discussion is only just starting to get it. It doesn’t MATTER if he’s right, or if he’s a realist. Either way this is shitty, inhumane advice.<\/p>\n

It puts the reader in the group taking action, and puts women (and other humans with inconvenient ’emotional realities’) in a group marked “Other”. And as we all know, that’s classic 101 to dehumanising your target and making it easier to see them as objects who don’t need to be considered. It’s also bollocks. He’s giving instructions for how to manipulate others for your own success, without looking at any possibility of finding any common ground, sharing boundaries, or viewing them as real people who could be talked to. They’re just there to be made to go away with the least stress to him. Adams is dismissing the idea that his current views could be wrong<\/em> and that he might learn something from women, because dialogue is not an option. He’d rather choose the path of least resistance. That’s a pretty closed mind right there.<\/p>\n

It’s not easier for “everyone”, Scott. Just you. <\/p>\n

It’s not easier for women, for example. Also: women, children and “the mentally handicapped”(!) are together a majority<\/em>, which makes you sitting inside your privileged minority and dismissing them like this all the more craptastic. The majority of the human race are more emotional than you, Scott, and as you’ve just demonstrated probably have more empathy too.<\/p>\n

Towards the end of the post he says:<\/p>\n

“Fairness is an illusion. It\u2019s unobtainable in the real world.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For someone who has spent decades writing about the inhumanity of big business, that’s a surprising quote. And my inner Hopeless Idealist rejects it totally. Yes, men face different inequalities: in the divorce courts, in countries with a military draft, in society’s ancient ideas of what ‘masculine’ behaviour is. But even if I felt that these somehow matched the towering mountain of (frequently lethal) inequality facing women (which I don’t by several miles), I would never give up on seeking fairness. It’s an instinctive, empathic, humane response which shows that you’re a decent human being.<\/p>\n

So yeah, I now think Scott Adams is a douche as well. Several additional words spring to mind (the lovely Miranda<\/a> put in a vote for “ableist asshat” at this juncture). If you want to read his justifications (that he often takes the point of view on his blog which is most difficult to defend, that his readers know he often doesn’t even believe the argument he’s making, that we’re all devoid of “reading comprehension”) then you can wander over to where he’s currently trolling the comment thread at Feministe.<\/a> Yes, seriously. At no time does he back down from the opinion he stated, or acknowledge how the act of grouping 51% of the planet and more into an ‘overly emotional’ box to be safely ignored for his own mental peace of mind is in any way douche-worthy.<\/p>\n

We are better than his exclusionary, patronising bullshit, people. There’s an alternative where we keep talking, and learning, and looking for ways to make a society we can be proud of. Together. Because women are human beings, and the fact that this still needs saying means that all men should be jumping aboard the feminism boat<\/a> for joint rock n’ roll pirate adventures. The alternative is a land run by people as ignorant, reactionary and self-absorbed as the boss in the Dilbert comics, and no-one wins when that happens.<\/p>\n

– Steve B.
\nWhite, mid-thirties cis male who used to work for a giant American corporation and buy Dilbert calendars.<\/p>\n