{"id":12973,"date":"2011-03-25T22:03:46","date_gmt":"2011-03-26T05:03:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=12973"},"modified":"2016-01-01T09:44:37","modified_gmt":"2016-01-01T17:44:37","slug":"never-argue-with-an-idiot-they-drag-you-down-to-their-level","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=12973","title":{"rendered":"Never Argue With an Idiot. They Drag You Down to Their Level."},"content":{"rendered":"

So as you may or may not know, Scott Adams, the creator of \u201cDilbert,\u201d\u00a0has a blog<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This likely doesn\u2019t surprise you. After all, anybody who\u2019s anybody \u2014 and most anybody who isn\u2019t \u2014 has a blog these days. And if it is a surprise, it likely doesn\u2019t interest you. And yet perhaps it should, because Adams has written something worth reading, if only because it says so very much about Adams himself.<\/p>\n

Oh, don\u2019t go looking for it on his blog \u2014 he pulled it down, and rather quickly. Which is, I must say, the first think that merits opprobrium. I\u2019ve written all sorts of things I\u2019ve later regretted. I\u2019ve clarified and apologized and moved on, but I\u2019ve never disappeared a post, because once you publish a post, it\u2019s not yours anymore; it belongs to the world.<\/p>\n

But I can\u2019t blame Adams for wanting to disappear this one; it\u2019s perhaps\u00a0the most spectacularly awful argument in favor of women being treated unfairly that I\u2019ve ever read<\/a>.<\/p>\n

No, you didn\u2019t misread that sentence.<\/p>\n

Adams,\u00a0apparently responding to MRA-types<\/a> who wanted him to write about Men\u2019s Rights, starts off badly.<\/p>\n

The topic my readers most want me to address is something calledmen\u2019s rights<\/em>. (See previous post.) This is a surprisingly good topic. It\u2019s dangerous. It\u2019s relevant. It isn\u2019t overdone. And apparently you care.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It isn\u2019t a good topic. It isn\u2019t dangerous, unless by \u201cdangerous\u201d one means \u201cdangerous to logic.\u201d It isn\u2019t relevant. It\u2019s totally overdone. And nobody cares outside of\u00a0a fringe group of guys looking for excuses to hate women<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But please, go on.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s start with the laundry list.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wow. That\u2019s a really, really painfully weak list of complaints. Men get drafted? Well, not in my lifetime. And the reason men get drafted and women don\u2019t is that women aren\u2019t\u00a0allowed<\/em> to serve in combat roles \u2014 a decision that is not one supported by women. Men have lower life expectancies? A big part of that is due to male-on-male violence, and I don\u2019t know any women who argue that it\u2019s great that their husbands, brothers, fathers and sons die off early. Higher male suicide rate? I agree, it\u2019s a problem \u2014 but what\u2019s standing in the way of men getting psychological help? I mean other than the\u00a0faux<\/em> macho, suck-it-up-sissy, men-don\u2019t-cry school of manliness?<\/p>\n

As for the only complaint that might hold a thimbleful of water \u2014 the legal system \u2014 I\u2019ll grant you that the system could be improved with regard to child custody. But the underlying reason for that is the old, ingrained, patriarchal ideal that women are primary child-rearers, and men are not. Don\u2019t like that women get custody more often? Work to build a system where men are valued equally as parents \u2014 just as women worked to build a system where women were equally valued as workers.<\/p>\n

As for \u201cthe growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women\u201d \u2014\u00a0name one<\/em>. Because I can\u2019t. If this list is so long and expansive, then I, as part of the evil feminist conspiracy, should have heard of at least one program from the nefarious Ministry of Misandry.<\/p>\n

Adams, perhaps recognizing that this is hardly the stuff of revolution, expands.<\/p>\n

You might add to this list the entire area of manners.\u00a0We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse<\/em>?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What do you mean \u201cwe,\u201d Kemosabe? I don\u2019t take it for granted that I\u2019m supposed to hold doors for women \u2014 and the women I know don\u2019t take it for granted that I\u2019ll hold doors for them. I will, if I\u2019m going through first \u2014 just as I will for my male friends \u2014 and my female friends will as well.<\/p>\n

As for getting served first in a restaurant \u2014 I didn\u2019t even know that was a thing. And if it is a thing, it\u2019s a dumb thing. But I think most women would gladly get served second in exchange for, say, the right to\u00a0walk down the street without being harassed<\/a>. Just sayin.\u2019<\/p>\n

Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.<\/p>\n

Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What is \u201cmale behavior,\u201d and when has it been discouraged? Is it getting drunk and hitting on women whether they want you to or not? Because that seems to be still going on. Being slovenly? That\u2019s not a uniquely male behavior, nor is it a universally male behavior. Is it riding the rails like an itinerant hobo? Because that is discouraged, and kind of stupid.<\/p>\n

So what are we talking about? Is it grilling out? Playing video games? Watching porn? What the hell are you\u00a0talking<\/em> about?<\/p>\n

How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don\u2019t think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well,\u00a0women have been paying more for health insurance<\/a>, thanks to their costy uteruses. They also pay more for all sorts of common items, frommortgages to hair cuts to moisturizer<\/a>. Funny, this probably adds up to be far more of a penalty than car insurance, but I don\u2019t hear women complaining. Probably because they\u2019re too busy trying to defend their reproductive rights.<\/p>\n

As for college \u2014 yes, men have fallen behind women in college enrollment, driven primarily by\u00a0large gaps in the African American and Hispanic communities<\/a>. And I\u2019m not sanguine about that. But I don\u2019t particularly blame women for it. Indeed, the problem has not been that men have been enrolling in college less,\u00a0but that women\u2019s enrollment has skyrocketed<\/a>. I\u2019m not going to blame women for going out and getting an education.<\/p>\n

Anyhow, I\u2019ve learned that if I\u2019m a man, I don\u2019t have much to complain about. But surely Scott Adams is not so blinkered as to have ignored the fact that, you know, women had to create an entire movement in order to secure basic rights, one that continues to work to secure them today? Well, sure, he\u2019s noticed them, but their complaints are like the buzzing of flies.<\/p>\n

Women will counter with their own list of wrongs, starting with the well-known statistic that women earn only 80 cents on the dollar, on average, compared to what men earn for the same jobs. My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

How it\u2019s different I\u2019m not going to tell you.<\/p>\n

Women will point out that few females are in top management jobs. 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well! It\u2019s his personal, non-scientific polling! Case closed, ladies!<\/p>\n

What we know is that \u201cthe highest level of career success\u201d carries with it a series of demands that are specifically designed to force one to trade family time for said success. Why could that be? I\u2019m sure it wouldn\u2019t be because that structure makes it easier for men \u2014 who society expects will work and provide \u2014 to get the jobs, and that it makes it harder for women \u2014 who society expects will parent and nurture \u2014 to get and keep them. And I\u2019m sure that no woman who\u2019s happy to make that tradeoff ever finds herself unable to take advantage of it, because her supervisor \u201cjust knows\u201d she\u2019ll end up quitting to have a baby. And I\u2019m sure all the men who are \u201cwilling\u201d to make that tradeoff are as willing as the women who stayed home in the 1950s, because it\u2019s what you\u2019re \u201csupposed to do.\u201d Clearly, this is all just in the imaginations of women.<\/p>\n

At any rate, all this has shown me is that MRAs are, as per usual, whining about nothing, and that they should get over it. I hope that\u2019s what Adams tells them.<\/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

Well! Okay! Maybe I was wrong. Oh, sure, \u201cpussies\u201d is offensive, but maybe Adams, halfway through his post, realized that the women\u2019s issues he raised (and the ones he didn\u2019t, like sexual assault and reproductive freedom) pretty much trump those issues brought up by his MRA followers. Maybe he\u2019s going to tell them that they don\u2019t know what bad is. Maybe he\u2019s going to tell them to stop whining, straighten up, and recognize that men still aren\u2019t anywhere near second-class citizens in our society.<\/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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Or\u2026not.<\/p>\n

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

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.<\/p>\n

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It\u2019s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you\u2019re still crying about your pawn when you\u2019re having your way with the queen, there\u2019s something wrong with you and it isn\u2019t men\u2019s rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Okay, seriously, this is the point at which I grow stabby. Because this rambling, incoherent mess of an argument is unbelievably offensive to any sentient being.<\/p>\n

First off, it\u2019s obviously about as misogynistic an argument as one can muster for\u2026well, anything. Women should be treated like children, or like the mentally handicapped. Because they\u2019re not rational beings. And if you just humor them when they complain about their silly little \u201cwage gap\u201d or \u201crape\u201d or \u201cinability to secure safe and legal health care,\u201d well, then you might get laid! (I know, his metaphor is pretty obscure, but that\u2019s what it meant, if you couldn\u2019t figure it out with your childish lady brains.)<\/p>\n

But as deeply offensive and awful as the argument is toward women, it is nearly as evil toward men. I don\u2019t like the MRAs, and I think they\u2019re wrong about just about everything. But telling them, \u201cHey, shut up and you can bang chicks\u201d is patently offensive. Believe it or not, men have more interests than sex. Really! It\u2019s true! And saying that all male concerns should vanish in service to the larger focus of gettin\u2019 some \u2014 well, as usual, nobody hates men as much as an anti-feminist.<\/p>\n

Fairness is an illusion. It\u2019s unobtainable in the real world. I\u2019m happy that I can open jars with my bare hands. I like being able to lift heavy objects. And I don\u2019t mind that women get served first in restaurants because I don\u2019t like staring at food that I can\u2019t yet eat.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See? Women are much more likely to get raped by men, but men have towait for our food<\/em>! Everybody\u2019s got issues! Stop complaining!<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re feeling unfairly treated because women outlive men, try visiting an Assisted Living facility and see how delighted the old ladies are about the extra ten years of pushing the walker around. It makes dying look like a bargain.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Unless your alternative is being dead. I don\u2019t want to suffer in my old age, but neither do I want to give up on life while I can still enjoy some of it; frankly, if I\u2019m pushing a walker around, surfing the internet, and watching old \u201cBattlestar Galactica\u201d reruns on the Old Folks channel, and if my daughter brings herself and her partner and any kids they might have around to visit once in a while \u2014 well, I\u2019m not going to be in any hurry to leave, no matter how often I have to pee at night.<\/p>\n

Oh, and the gender gap isn\u2019t ten years \u2014\u00a0it\u2019s five<\/a>. That\u2019s down from a high of 7.8 years. Clearly, that decline is proof of something. Just not that there\u2019s a conspiracy to keep women alive at the expense of men.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t like the fact that the legal system treats men more harshly than women. But part of being male is the automatic feeling of team. If someone on the team screws up, we all take the hit. Don\u2019t kid yourself that men haven\u2019t earned some harsh treatment from the legal system. On the plus side, if I\u2019m trapped in a burning car someday, a man will be the one pulling me out. That\u2019s the team I want to be on.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Seriously, I don\u2019t even know what he\u2019s talking about here. I thought the evo-psych just-so story was that men were more competitive and less collaborative?<\/p>\n

And why would it be a man pulling you out of a burning car? I ain\u2019t pulling nobody out of a burning car. And yet many female firefighters and police officers will do so happily.<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t argument-by-analogy. It\u2019s argument-by-stupidity.<\/p>\n

Anyhow, we\u2019re mercifully to the closing paragraph. And it\u2019s here that Scott Adams suddenly achieves self-awareness.<\/p>\n

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh, I don\u2019t know who would do that.<\/p>\n

So I want to be perfectly clear. I\u2019m not saying women are similar to either group.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No! Of course not!<\/p>\n

I\u2019m saying that a man\u2019s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Right! He\u2019s not saying that women are children, or mentally disabled. He\u2019s just saying that if you\u2019re a man, you should treat women like they\u2019re children, or like they\u2019re mentally disabled. See? I don\u2019t know why anyone would be offended by that.<\/p>\n

If he\u2019s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don\u2019t care about 90% of what is happening around us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So sure, women get all upset about \u201cnot getting fair pay\u201d and \u201cbeing expected to stay home with the kids\u201d and \u201cbeing raped\u201d and stupid stuff like that. Women! Amirite? Always with the drama! Not like men \u2014 we don\u2019t sweat the small stuff, like women\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n

Now, you might think that this is the most asinine thing you ever read, and that Adams himself clearly felt so, since he pulled the post. Maybe you\u2019re even hoping that this is some kind of scam, that Adams didn\u2019t write this at all. Well, to the second point, sorry \u2014\u00a0there are screen shots<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But you\u2019re right, maybe Adams feels bad about it. Maybe he went to sleep, and woke up, and thought, \u201cBoy, that was stupid.\u201d<\/p>\n

Or maybe Adams decided to take to\u00a0Feministe<\/a> to\u00a0defend himself<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Is this an entire website dedicated to poor reading comprehension? I don\u2019t think one of you understood the writing. You\u2019re all hopping mad about your own misinterpretations.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, clearly your highfalutin\u2019 speechifyin\u2019 was the problem here. It couldn\u2019t possibly be that people read your post and comprehended that it was a m\u00e9lange of misogyny with a\u00a0soup\u00e7on<\/em> of stupidity. It must be we stupids out here in the netherworld.<\/p>\n

Oh, and incidentally \u2014 you can write for whomever you think you\u2019re writing for, but once it\u2019s written, anyone can read it. Even stupid feminists and our stupid girly emotions.<\/p>\n

In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can\u2019t 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which is why so many MRAs read it. Gotcha.<\/p>\n

Seriously, Scott? You wrote a post in which you said women should be treated like children, and you want to hang your defense on the fact that you used a simile, and people are treating you like you used a metaphor? Come\u00a0on<\/em>. That\u2019s pathetic.<\/p>\n

Nobody\u2019s misunderstanding what you wrote. We may think it was written poorly, but you weren\u2019t deliberately obtuse. You pretty much wrote a series of easily comprehensible sentences that people easily comprehended. You\u2019re just mad that some of the people who understood it were people outside your little in-group \u2014 and that some of them, like the women (and men) you insulted, dared to get angry at being insulted. Well, tough. You wrote it. Own it.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve written on the topic how you can\u2019t mix incendiary images in the same piece without the readers\u2019 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which is why I\u2019ve repeated every line in your post, Scott. Every. Single. Line. Because I\u2019m\u00a0not<\/em> taking it out of context. Indeed, it\u2019s the totality of your post that\u2019s the problem, not any particular line.<\/p>\n

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?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See, ladies and gents? If you\u2019d just discuss Adams\u2019 assertion \u2014 that women should be treated like children so that men can have more sex \u2014 in a rational, calm way, he\u2019d be happy to discuss things with you. But you insist on getting angry. Thus proving that you\u2019re just like children! Check, mate, Scott gets to nail the queen.<\/p>\n

You\u2019re angry, but I\u2019ll bet every one of you agrees with me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I don\u2019t agree with you, Scott. I don\u2019t agree that men have it worse than women. I don\u2019t agree that men have nothing to complain about.<\/p>\n

But more than anything, I don\u2019t agree that anyone, women or men, should simply accept \u201cthe world isn\u2019t fair\u201d as an endpoint. Flying Spaghetti Monster, do you know how awful our society would be if we accepted that? We are the society we are because women, African Americans, Jews, Protestants, serfs, slaves, homosexuals, and yes, men \u2014 all of them stood up at times to say, simply, \u201cThe world isn\u2019t fair \u2014 and\u00a0that is unacceptable<\/em>.\u201d And you know what happened?<\/p>\n

The world changed.<\/p>\n

Serfs and slaves were freed. People could speak their minds. They could worship how they wanted. They could vote. They could work. They could live the lives they desired.<\/p>\n

Oh, we\u2019re not there yet. The world still isn\u2019t fair, and perhaps it never will be, not totally. But it\u2019s a lot more fair than it was long before our time, Scott, and it\u2019s getting more fair every day. And I\u2019ll be damned if you tell us that unfairness is something we should accept. Scott, it\u2019s the one thing we shouldn\u2019t.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

So as you may or may not know, Scott Adams, the creator of \u201cDilbert,\u201d\u00a0has a blog. This likely doesn\u2019t surprise you. After all, anybody who\u2019s anybody \u2014 and most anybody who isn\u2019t \u2014 has a blog these days. And if … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[95,17,31,55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anti-feminists-and-their-pals","category-cartooning-comics","category-feminism-sexism-etc","category-men-and-masculinity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12973"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12973\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12974,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12973\/revisions\/12974"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}