July 1, 2011

Jezebel Proves Scott Adams Is Right

dilbert vs jezebel.jpg

(note to lawyers: I made this, not Scott Adams, and falls under parody, so bite me.)

Scott Adams, Dilbert creator, sparked a feminist controversy of sorts, and then he asked for feedback from:

Judge

Psychologist (professional)

Logic Professor

Scientist

etc, by which he meant: men.

And he got a lot of feedback

If you already know the controversy, skip right to III.


II.

Now consider human males... Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating... The current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior. That seems right. Obviously we shouldn't blame the victims....

The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable...  Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn't ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, "Here's your square hole"?

That's Scott Adams, writing the not original "men are oppressed in a female controlled society" argument.  Men would naturally be raping and pillaging and wearing horn helmets, but the world's not set up that way anymore, and its not set up that way by women.  They have all the power, and they have restricted men from acting on their penile instincts.

Here's is the prototypical "feminist" response/censorship petition, from Change.org:

Scott Adams, has written a blog insinuating that the act of a man raping a woman is a natural instinct and that society is to blame for these things, not the man who committed the rape.


Which isn't what he said, but, whatever.


III.


Let's start with Jezebel, who, despite having the moral high ground and being staffed by people who are paid to practice writing about this sort of thing, completely botch it.  If you want to increase understanding or bring people together, do not do anything close to what Jezebel does here. 

Jezebel's response is typical of the way Americans argue politics and social theory: straw man and appeal to authority.   It's obvious the writer finds Adams's blog offensive, and I will accept that she wants the world to be a better place, but no where does she make even an attempt to  articulate why she finds it offensive.  After she quotes Adams, she writes:  

Wow. Trying to make it sound like your argument falls under the category of "gender theory" while saying that "boys" are pretty much designed to be rapists and we'd better get used to it is...I don't even know what it is anymore.

And nothing else.  There are other words, sure, but just like the above none of them refute his point, they're just ad hominem padding, "he's a jerk for thinking it."   I'm sure your regular readers agree, but for the dummies among us, can you perhaps explain why?

Which leads me to suspect that she doesn't actually know why it's wrong, only that it is wrong.  And to escape detection, she offers deliberate misreadings like "he's justifying rape" so that she can follow it with "'Nuff said."

Here's the very practical problem: Adams is not alone in thinking that women are running the culture and men are being emasculated.  If Jezebel's goal is simply to insult him, fine, but tremendously boring.  But if their goal was also to promote a vision of social equality, they've done the opposite.  All they did was bully and insult him.  "You're a jerk, accept it!  I said accept it!"  But that power is precisely what he's complaining about.  So not only does it not convince Adams (or anyone else) what he's saying is wrong, it confirms for him he is right about them.

IV.

Salon pretended to offer a reasoned response.  Three paragraphs of fluff, then in the fourth paragraph she begins:

There are two important rebuttals to be made here.
Ok, finally, please proceed:

First and foremost: thanks for all the gags about casual Friday, but Scott Adams sounds like he's lost his freaking marbles.

Hmm, interesting and unexpected point.  And second?

Second, as a colleague pointed out recently, remember the old sexist argument that women weren't qualified for positions of power because their lady hormones would make them act all crazy and emotional?...You don't hear that one so much anymore, do you?

Adams, in contrast, represents a different extreme -- and extremely lunkheaded -- version of an alternate line of sexist thought. And in his own clumsy way, he articulates something many of us have heard repeatedly over the course of our lives, an argument that boils down to boys being boys. Left to their own devices, men apparently would just go about raping and pillaging all the livelong day, with occasional breaks for grilling and watching ESPN. They're just being men, and doggone it if this pesky thing called civilization keeps getting in the way.

That's not a rebuttal, that's unfunny sophistry.  She's basically saying, "not all men are rapists."  Again, no one disagrees with that; but the more nuanced reworking of Adams's arguments is whether civilization is the only factor that prevents humans from falling into violent anarchy.  After the fallout settles, should we should expect more rapes and murders, or the same number?  That's a very interesting question, one that goes to the heart of the justice system vs. poverty.

But rather than have that discussion, Salon merely states, as self-evident, that Adams is a lunatic.

That, in a backwards and poorly articulated way, is Adams's point.  Why is he required to justify and clarify and hedge and explain, yet Jezebel and Salon can make it axiomatic that he's wrong?  Because they control society?

JEZEBEL VS DILBERT.jpg( made by me, not Scott Adams)



Jezebel and Salon have utterly failed to convince anyone who was not already convinced that Adams is wrong; and have reinforced to Adams, et al, that women are running the culture. If you want to swing back at me that it's not Jezebel and Salon's job to change people's thinking, fine, but then what the hell are people doing reading Jezebel and Salon?

It's probably unnecessary but still completely worth pointing out that the only reason anyone is offended by Scott Adams is that he is Scott Adams the famous cartoonist, and not Scott Adams the retail manager at Best Buy.



IV. 

So what is wrong with what Adams said?  What argument might convince him that he is wrong, or at least help him release some of that anger?

Adams seems to be believe that men are naturally sexually aggressive, and women/society put limits on their natural impulses.  This is what Jezebel got wrong: he doesn't believe this.  He wishes this.

And when he says society is a "prison" for men's natural urges to penetrate random women like in caveman days, he is not really complaining about this prison.  That's what he wants.  He wants it to be true that society is cockblocking him.

Because if that is true, then it isn't his own inability to score chicks that's limiting him.  "I'd love to just walk up to some hot chick in a bar and just take her home and bang her," he might think, "but society doesn't let me."  Really?  Dude, you need to switch bars.

Not being able to easily and fluidly pick up women is maddeningly destructive to many men,  not tempered by other successes in their lives.  We hear the refrain that media images create unrealistic expectations of women to be hot, etc, but the flip side is that some men can't understand why everyone else seems to be able to hook up easily, freely, fun-ly, while they're in the corner all boiling rage.  Confronted with this, they have two choices: I'm inadequate, or the Matrix is against me.  Men who don't want to kill themselves choose b.

Notice carefully and repeatedly that I didn't say "have sex with."  The point isn't the having of sex, the point is the convincing of someone to have sex with you.  That, and not the sex itself, is a measure of your value as a man.  The value has to be determined by someone else.  If she thinks you're worth it and she doesn't know you, then you must be.  The sex part is fun and best done standing up, but irrelevant.

There are men who sleep with three dozen women and still think they can't pick up girls, because they have an explanation for why each one didn't count: she was drunk, she was on the rebound, she was slumming it, she was trying to make her boyfriend jealous... 

Note that Adams is a world famous cartoonist... and it is still not enough.  Neither is the fact that he's convinced at least one woman (wife) to sleep with him ("that doesn't count, she loves me.")  Why?  Because he hasn't allowed those legitimate successes to define him ("that's not who I am"-- which is also why he is reinventing himself as a blogger), and so he's trapped in the mind of a pre-cartoonist nerd, finding a scale for his self-worth in people who don't know him's eyes.

What Adams doesn't realize is that this world controlled by women, who prevent his fulfillment and happiness, does not exist; and that he thinks it does drives women, and at least a few men, bananas.  But it is absolutely necessary to his survival that he believes it exists, or else all is lost.

I'll bet he has little cartoons taped to his office wall.  He should replace one of those cartoons with a little yellow post-it note upon which he should write, with a Sharpie, seven words: you are being lied to, by yourself.


----


Why is Tracy Morgan in trouble a second time?  It isn't what he said.











Comments

HmPerhaps it's wor... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 1:15 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Hm

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that Scott Adams isn't actually an engineer or a programmer, and never has been. He's an MBA who, in his management career, worked closely with engineers and programmers. Their antics amused him and became the basis of Dilbert. But he was never really one of the nerds. He is not Dilbert. I think he's closer to Dogbert.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 18 (30 votes cast)
I can relate to this on som... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 1:19 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I can relate to this on some level (the guy not having sex and finding it easier to blame society, women, etc). I feel like certain feminists can fall into this externalizing pattern as well with some of their arguments.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (25 votes cast)
What this African-American ... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 1:24 AM | Posted by Gary: | Reply

What this African-American doesn't realize is that this world controlled by Caucasians or Jews, who prevent his fulfillment and happiness, does not exist. But it is absolutely necessary to his survival that he believes it exists, or else all is lost.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (98 votes cast)
I always chose a. I never e... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 1:48 AM | Posted by John: | Reply

I always chose a. I never even thought of b.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 38 (40 votes cast)
Also, it's hard to imagine ... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 2:02 AM | Posted by Or: | Reply

Also, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have expected this kind of response from the clogosphere. Just look at these three words from his post: "All I’m saying". There's only one reason anybody ever uses that phrase -- and it's not to notify you that they're about to summarize their argument for the purposes of genuine, rational discussion. If he *wants* society's shaming/blaming to be the reason for his problems, what better way to bolster that illusion than to push people's buttons so their natural response is knee-jerk condemnation?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 34 (36 votes cast)
Its sort of a leap of logic... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 2:46 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Its sort of a leap of logic to assume adams is speaking from his personal experience with women here.

Some of the most womanizing ladies men sometimes think this way the most.
This is because they confuse “natural” with “good”. In describing their drive to fuck as many women as possible as “natural” they remove guilt/shame for the behaviors , blaming women for making them feel that guilt/shame in the first place. It’s all horrible logic. First of all, natural does not mean good, and second, its not women’s fault that you feel guilty for being a selfish abusive piece of trash. You feel shame/guilt because its wrong, whether or not it is natural is irrelevant. IT’s natural to steal and to pee in the middle of a public street, but it doesn’t remove the guilt and shame associated with those activities.

In sexually successful men this is a maneuver to mitigate any shame or guilt they feel.
In unsuccessful men this shifts responsibility for sexual failure onto women (“I would be screwing lots of women if not for stupidwomen!!111”)

But you know what? Women do not prevent men from getting some. Other men do. What guys like adams always forget is that in a natural environment, women are not fruit waiting to be plucked from a tree.There are always bigger, stronger men ready to kill you if you try. That’s why testosterone makes you grow tall, grow muscles, grow facial hair and body hair. Like a lion’s mane, testosterone creates an appearance that an intimidation game. “gee, that guy is big and hairy … I better not try anything funny I’ll end up mortally wounded”. The muscles and extra hemoglobin synthesis and shift of antibodies onto your skin – all effects of testosterone – just merely help you cope with the conflicts you end up engaging in (usually reproductively motivated). Most of it is trying to scare the crap out of competitors so actual physical conflicts are minimized.

So the next time a bunch of guys sit around bitching about how women prevent them from having lots of sex, they need to remember that in the REAL WORLD very few males were reproductively successful. Your average dilbert would die a beta male, childless, and probably wouldn’t even dream of challenging the alphas in his tribe.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 31 (71 votes cast)
It should be noted the one ... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 2:51 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

It should be noted the one exception to this is war.

In primitive hunter gatherer cultures, war was awesome for me because all men involved in the war - who lived anyway - were able to rape the teen/early 20s women in the losing tribe. At root war is nothing more than a reproductive strategy for males. The end point of war is looting and raping. I mean in modern societies it's not... but the base drive men have for a preoccupation with war and a keenness to join bands and violent conflict is very much an evoutionarily conserved reproductive strategy which benefits men particularly low status men who could not be reproductively successful otherwise.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (52 votes cast)
If you want to swi... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 5:42 AM | Posted by sconzey: | Reply

If you want to swing back at me that it's not Jezebel and Salon's job to change people's thinking, fine, but then what the hell are people doing reading Jezebel and Salon?
Waiiiit... It's news to you that this -- the most narcissistic generation -- preferentially read things which validate rather than challenge their perception of reality?
Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 20 (36 votes cast)
Quote:[Scott Adams... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 6:45 AM | Posted by Arun: | Reply

Quote:

[Scott Adams, Dilbert creator, sparked a feminist controversy of sorts, and then he asked for feedback from:

Judge

Psychologist (professional)

Logic Professor

Scientist

etc, by which he meant: men.]

This is plain wrong: you're putting insinuating words into his mouth to suit your own agenda. There is no big deficiency of female judges, psychologists, logic professors (okay, that's such a small profession that yes, maybe there is an appreciably large imbalance), and scientists.

Also it seems like instead of addressing Adams directly and criticizing his opinion, you're just trying to make a few personal jabs at his ability to attract women, and you're simply trying to discredit his opinion by discrediting his personality. What a logical, serious discussion you intend to hold here.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (67 votes cast)
yes, the laws exist because... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 6:59 AM | Posted by Liora: | Reply

yes, the laws exist because the impulses exist and in order to conduct a "civilized" society, we need to not be going around tweeting and raping and cheating... wait... did "tweeting" and "cheating" just get used as the bread on the sandwich of "raping"??? why is that not what all of the responses to Adams are about??

two more things: 1. laws and mores may be enacted to (attempt to) squeeze people into better behavior than that in which they would naturally be inclined to engage, BUT (I like big BUTs) society also promulgates a lot of crap that perpetuates the "bad" behavior the laws and mores are purportedly enacted to quash. especially if you're a guy. the media tells us that what Adams is saying is true, even as the media tells us it is wrong to say it is true.

2. can we please stop pretending that women don't like sex and/or tweet and/or cheat? please?? as shocking and "unladylike" as it might be, my "natural instincts" do not equal the driven snow. and what about the women who are involved with the tweeters and cheaters?? (notice i left out "rapists" there.) they have no "instinct" about their involvement, or are they the "victims" of men's bad behavior? PLEASE. SPARE ME.

OK... one more thing: 3. in addition to laws/societal pressure, there are these things called morals and values that help keep our "instincts" in check. if we know that the behavior in which we are about to engage is harmful to another person, particularly (presumably) to a person about whom we care deeply, we have the capacity to examine the possible consequences of our behavior before we press "send" and unleash the fury of the tabloids on our heads. in other words, while the impulse may be there, there is plenty of scaffolding around it to hold it in. (the zipper, for example. rather ominous with all those teeth.) if we choose to press "send" anyway, we are shooting craps and deserve what we get in the end, but at that point, it has nothing to do with instinct.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 23 (27 votes cast)
I interpret Mr. Adams criti... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 7:33 AM | Posted by Hypocrisy Illustrated: | Reply

I interpret Mr. Adams criticism differently - separating the text from his caveman rapist vs. baby turtles comic strip from what he actually says in the bit TLP quotes in Paragraph II.

There is a major distinction between strong libido, alpha male type serial seduction and rape. Our civilisation somehow perceives both DS Kahn and A Weiner as alphas behaving badly - even if the alleged infractions are vastly different. Either way we have social institutions (and feminist thinkers) struggling to contain an overflowing male nature (and libido). Feminists have no problem recognising that social institutions had long repressed women's natural equality and drives. Perhaps they should take a look at how good a fit social institutions are for men's nature?

To summarise, females may suffer from their fear of harassment and assault, but who suffers more from the asymmetrically strong male libido? Men or women?

Women don't choose to get harassed.
Men don't choose their overwhelming desire.

But we all know that for any mating / courtship to occur, men have to initiate, to approach the women. If not found attractive, women judge these overtures creepy (bad behaviour). If attractive, men can't help charming their target doing things that from a lesser male would seem creepy.

Tip, to avoid being accused of unwanted harassment, be charming and be attractive.


PS.

In the "men behaving badly" adultery narratives, why do we always blame the men, but have little contempt left for the home-breaking bimbos and mistresses?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (57 votes cast)
This is the first time I th... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 7:53 AM | Posted by thatswhyidrink: | Reply

This is the first time I thought about a point you made way before you wrote about it. Your world view is clearly beginning to seep into my own. I hope that's a good thing ;)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Most psychologists are fema... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 8:09 AM | Posted by Ralph: | Reply

Most psychologists are female, so I don't believe he meant exclusively men. Had he asked for "psychiatrists", on the other hand, that might have been the case.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
Wow – how do you do it? Who... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 8:39 AM | Posted by Kahn: | Reply

Wow – how do you do it? Who are you? Wait I don’t want to know, I am afraid maybe if you come out, you’ll lose your ability to perceive and will become part of this mad reality show that we are all in, instead of being its greatest fan.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 12 (18 votes cast)
<a href="http://thirdtierre... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 8:54 AM | Posted by Nando: | Reply

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/

It is obvious that Adams was not encouragin sexual assault. Hell, Dilbert is deflated rather quickly by his co-worker. Which makes him look even more inept. Meanwhile, others in the real world - such as law school administrators and professors - enjoy financially raping their students.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -19 (29 votes cast)
Yes - it's a little hilario... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 9:26 AM | Posted, in reply to Arun's comment, by gwern: | Reply

Yes - it's a little hilarious how tlp spends almost this entire page pointing out and criticizing how other responses were empty ad hominems, only to immediately offer up an ad hominem of its own.

No, worse than an ad hominem, because its genetic fallacy is directly refuted by a major and salient piece of evidence (that Adams is happily married) - which tlp dismisses for no reason whatsoever based on some imaginary argument belief 'it doesn't count because she loves me'!

If it's deliberate and a satire on all the comments here who swallow it uncritically, this post is a rare work of genius, on par with Frank Herbert's _Dune_ or _The Iron Dream_ or "A Modest Proposal".

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 11 (33 votes cast)
Here's the thing, though.</... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 10:07 AM | Posted by Matt: | Reply

Here's the thing, though.

It's not about whether or not he can pick up chicks. (Or maybe you're right that it is in his own mind...but it's not about that in the actual published text, which -- not being psychic -- is all I have to go on.) It's about society's biases relative to human instincts.

I don't think he's arguing that men should have the right to drag women off by their hair and rape them. Part of the price of living in a civilized society is that we tell people not to do that sort of thing, and when one of them declines to listen, we track him down and lock him in a big ugly building with no women. This is a sacrifice that men have had to make in order for civilization to work. I'm pro-civilization, and I'm willing to pay that price, and others besides.

But what comparable sacrifices do women have to make?

No cheating, now...you don't get to list any that used to be demanded of women in the past, but no longer are.

We can talk about whether he's wrong when there's a convincing answer to that question. Until then, I'm just going to go forward on the well-supported hypothesis that he's right.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (38 votes cast)
Really. "[T]his world contr... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 10:13 AM | Posted, in reply to Gary's comment, by Anon21: | Reply

Really. "[T]his world controlled by Caucasians . . . does not exist"? Yes, it does, and we're all living in it! Not that white people (us) are making black people unhappy or unfulfilled due to malevolent design--at least not most of us. But it's a consequence of our social, political, and financial domination that most of us don't lose any sleep over. But it's black people who have the false consciousness? Ok, man. Good job transmuting guilt into racial hostility.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -8 (22 votes cast)
Congratulations on complete... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 10:40 AM | Posted, in reply to Anon21's comment, by Ralph: | Reply

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 13 (17 votes cast)
TLP - I think you go a bit ... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 11:48 AM | Posted by Magussartori: | Reply

TLP - I think you go a bit too far in section IV.

To better understand Adam's complaint, consider this:
A well endowed woman is walking down the street wearing a low cut shirt and no bra. The instinctual reaction from every male within sight is to turn and stare. Possibly drool.

If (in TLPs terms) you watch Nascar, then this is awesome and you're likely to brag about it later (which pisses off feminists). But if you an upper-middle-class american like Scott Adams, your next feeling is shame and guilt for objectifying the woman. If you're like Adams, then you've been taught that to a 'good person' objectifying women is shameful and should be repressed. His point is that this is not fair to men as it's a biological impulse he cant stop.

The two mistakes Scott Adam's makes are to
A) extend his personal experience of middle-class repression onto all men in society.
B) Not understand that the woman in the example above is also being punished by society for being immodest.

He assume that what she's doing is accepted by everyone , when I'm sure she's catching a lot of flak from the other women on the street.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 25 (37 votes cast)
I'm baffled as to why Mr. A... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 12:00 PM | Posted by chickadee: | Reply

I'm baffled as to why Mr. Adams thinks that only men ever get vilified, unlike all of us whores who are always wrecking our cars on the way to buy shoes and chocolate.

People seem determined to force all gender issues into a zero-sum game, which is annoying.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 30 (44 votes cast)
Because if that is true, th... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 12:06 PM | Posted by mulligan: | Reply

Because if that is true, then it isn't his own inability to score chicks that's limiting him.

When I read the first panel I thought that this was the joke Adams was making; Dilbert wishes this ridiculous statement were true, that his lack of success with women isn't due to his own real or perceived inadequacies. That makes the second panel even funnier- because not only is she correct, she's also completely rejecting him on a personal level. In fact, she's so uninterested and dismissive that she doesn't even bother to get upset about his remark.

Then I read his blog, and realized that I gave him too much credit.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 12 (16 votes cast)
Help me out a little.... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 12:11 PM | Posted by Hypocrisy Illustrated: | Reply

Help me out a little.

Is TLP accusing Mr. Adams projecting his own perspective, universalising for all humanity?

Perhaps he is, perhaps not. How can one be sure that TLP isn't doing the same, projecting his own meta subjective interpretation perspective on Mr. Adams? How can any of us be sure that we arent't doing this?

I don't get the sense that Mr. Adams is a crypto-rapist who feels frustrated by feminist domination of social and legal institutions.

In fact the distinction that Mr. Adams makes between himself between the more vigorously aggressive masculine traits found among the famous men behaving badly.

This is one of the first times that I remain unsatisfied by TLP's interpretation. Like @gwern, I'm not convinced by TLP's criticism of Mr. Adams possible projection of his subjective perspective. Why does he assume that Mr. Adams is a frustrated male, who is unable to achieve the kind of success and recognition by women? Not being a professional psychiatrist with the training to observe and judge people and their hidden motives, I can't see it. From my own subjective perspective, Mr. Adams is making a neutral observation that doesn't directly pertain to his own situation (he's not necessarily one of those men behaving badly).

TLP claims that Mr. Adams "wishes...to be believe that men are naturally sexually aggressive," What is the difference between "wishing" to believe and believing based on whatever limited evidence and experience that one has? Perhaps Mr. Adams simply is basing this idea on the evidence that he sees. Individually, men may or may not be more aggressive. Observe the multitude of sad frustrated passive hopeless men - in addition to the real go-getters. By comparison women are hardly ever taking the initiative or playing the active role.

Maybe TLP is just having fun with us. Maybe he's just uneasy with Mr. Adams' idea of medicating men (chemical castration) to make their libido more compatible with social expectations. For long women have told men that they are unnecessary, like that bicycle to the fish. After Mr. Adams prescription, perhaps men would be able to say the same about women.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (14 votes cast)
>> If you w... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 12:42 PM | Posted by Anonymous Coward: | Reply


>> If you want to swing back at me that it's not Jezebel and Salon's job to change people's thinking, fine, but then what the hell are people doing reading Jezebel and Salon?



A: Reinforcing their existing worldview.



TLP never seems to consider the reader's complicity in a narrative's agenda. A lot of reader selection of news sources is precisely this: which media outlets will challenge my worldview the least? (And of course I'll consider them to be authoritative sources!)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (11 votes cast)
Narcissist sees narcissism ... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 1:10 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Narcissist sees narcissism in everything o.O

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (13 votes cast)
It's this I got hung up on:... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 2:49 PM | Posted by philtrum: | Reply

It's this I got hung up on:

The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable...

He never elaborates on what the natural instincts of women supposedly are. I suppose we're supposed to accept it as obvious that women naturally want to sit still, cuddle babies and avoid sex, I don't know. Certainly his comment about the chemically castrated future indicates that he thinks women don't like sex. Ever. At all. And why does he believe that? Is that his experience (as TLP suggested) or just something he somehow needs to be true?

In fact many of the institutions that men like Adams now claim are harmful to men, female-dominated, etc., have been the way they are for a long time, since long before women were even involved as decision-makers. Why some men choose to say "this is women's man-hating plot against me, as a man" rather than "this makes me unhappy and I don't like it" is another interesting question. Why define this as a matter of sex, all women triumphing over all men?

I agree with the poster who says this is about Adams wanting to avoid shame and guilt for behaviour he has been taught is wrong. He is saying, I want to be allowed to cheat, to rape, to be aggressive with women. Not necessarily to do it, but to be allowed to do it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 37 (43 votes cast)
I don't agree with Scott Ad... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 3:35 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I don't agree with Scott Adams. I agree with him that many natural male instincts have been criminalized, yes, but I think it is a good thing, and not necessarily a feminine thing, that these instincts be controlled through processes of shaming and criminal prosecution. This is the purpose of civilization.

But to suggest that Adams is saying this because he can't score chicks is ludicrous Freudian nonsense.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (16 votes cast)
Yeah women being shallow ba... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 6:49 PM | Posted, in reply to chickadee's comment, by Home: | Reply

Yeah women being shallow bad drivers is right up there with being a good-for-nothing potential rapist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -9 (15 votes cast)
"you are being lied to, by ... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 7:30 PM | Posted by TheCoconutChef: | Reply

"you are being lied to, by yourself"

Make that the title of one the chapter (I assume it's gonna be groupes by theme here) of your book.

Good enough for the title as well.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
From Part III,J... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 7:47 PM | Posted by The Devastator: | Reply

From Part III,

Jezebel and Salon have utterly failed to convince anyone who was not already convinced that Adams is wrong; and have reinforced to Adams, et al, that women are running the culture. If you want to swing back at me that it's not Jezebel and Salon's job to change people's thinking, fine, but then what the hell are people doing reading Jezebel and Salon?

A partial answer: people read them for moral support. Okay, fine, feminist blogs are just preaching to the choir, but if the choir is/feels oppressed by the outside world, that can be useful. Not everything has to be a debate society. If you're bored, then despite the fact that you're reading it, it's not for you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 18 (20 votes cast)
Totally off topic but I ver... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 10:25 PM | Posted by Dan Meek: | Reply

Totally off topic but I very badly want to hear your thoughts on this: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mad-in-america/201106/now-antidepressant-induced-chronic-depression-has-name-tardive-dysphoria

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Go look at some porn. It'll... (Below threshold)

July 1, 2011 11:58 PM | Posted, in reply to Hypocrisy Illustrated's comment, by The Devastator: | Reply

Go look at some porn. It'll be okay in the morning.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
I don't get the se... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 12:33 AM | Posted, in reply to Hypocrisy Illustrated's comment, by DataShade: | Reply

I don't get the sense that Mr. Adams is a crypto-rapist who feels frustrated by feminist domination of social and legal institutions.
Then you're new to Mr. Adams' various blog-posts and columns, or not paying attention. Adams has a pretty well-established history of presenting arguments that fit the modifier - what I assume you mean by - "crypto."

Adams has gone so far as to create fake usernames for message boards/social networks to try to astroturf support for himself. (I'm too tired of getting into these debates, providing a link to back myself up, and being told 'that doesn't count, that's just wikipedia,' or 'that's not a real paper, that's just some blog' - so I won't link, just search for +"Scott Adams" +controversy.)


Why does he assume that Mr. Adams is a frustrated male, who is unable to achieve the kind of success and recognition by women?

Who suggests chemical castration to reduce problems with male/female interaction who isn't frustrated with those dealings? I moved in with my grandmother to help take care of her house after she had a heart attack, and the two years I spent there magically coincided with a two-year dry spell, and I never felt like I'd be better off neutered. I briefly worked for Adelphia, while it was bankrupt and they were firing any kind of dead weight or potential liabilities, and I flirted with more than a few female employees and never got the stink-eye, let alone an HR referral (here's a tip: consider your relative power, if your office has a 'hot new girl' and you offer to train her, you can't hit on her or it's fucking creepy AND an HR violation - you tell me which is worse, a cute 20-something's look of disgust, or a write-up, I know which would stress me out more, and based on his writing I think I know which Adams would prefer he never get). There was one guy, barely cleaner than a hobo, bad skin, unkempt beard, who kept trying to talk to me about his swinger girlfriend; that guy could've gotten the castration pills and I would've been happy about it, but I guarantee: he never felt like he was sexually frustrated, either. So where the hell is Scott Adams on the emotional spectrum?

As a semi-hysterical aside, on the post TLP links to, Scott replies to a comment with:

[I like that my only choices are to be a proud, smug, elitist douche bag or an idiot. I'm almost positive that argument can be made about Abe Lincoln. -- Scott]

So, what? Adams is suggesting that he, in his fight for "Men's Rights" is on par with Lincoln freeing the slaves? No, that can't be right, can it? Normal, well-adjusted, non-frustrated men don't carry a self-image of themselves with that level of grandiosity, so I'm probably wrong....

Except I've never heard anyone call Abe Lincoln a proud, smug, elitist douchebag - so I did a Google search ( http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=705&source=hp&q=%2B%22Abraham+Lincoln%22+%2Bsmug&pbx=1&oq=%2B%22Abraham+Lincoln%22+%2Bsmug&aq=f&aqi=&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=535l6509l0l26l25l2l0l0l0l234l3284l6.15.2l23&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cdcc36003f51c802 ) for +"Abraham Lincoln" +smug, and while I got absolutely no results I can find showing anyone calling Lincoln smug, but, on the first page you get a link to what I'll assume is a white supremacy site. So I'm left with no record of anyone ever calling Lincoln smug except Scott Adams and maybe some KKK holdouts. I guess Adams was fresh out of Hitlers.


What is the difference between "wishing" to believe and believing based on whatever limited evidence and experience that one has?

Well, he wouldn't be this frustrated and antagonistic about it - he wouldn't have been able to convince himself that this is a form of slavery - if he hadn't internalized the controls he feels are being exerted upon him, so his superego believes something is wrong while his ego wishes he could believe otherwise because then the would be free to act how his id demands.

Not to mention we wouldn't be having this conversation if all the evidence supported his argument. However, I will concede one point: Adams so consistently displays a kind of obtuse, will ignorance of others that I suppose it is conceivable that Adams simply misinterpreted or overlooked all the contradictory evidence.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 12 (22 votes cast)
if we know that th... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 12:45 AM | Posted, in reply to Liora's comment, by DataShade: | Reply

if we know that the behavior in which we are about to engage is harmful to another person, particularly (presumably) to a person about whom we care deeply, we have the capacity to examine the possible consequences of our behavior before we press "send" and unleash the fury of the tabloids on our heads.

Wharr am "another person?" I don't think Adams ever mentioned concern for other people, just all his "natural rights" that wimmins are all tramply on.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
OH WHAT AN IRONIC MONIKER Y... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 1:18 AM | Posted, in reply to Hypocrisy Illustrated's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

OH WHAT AN IRONIC MONIKER YOU HAVE THERE.

Loser men always love to say that women call unattractive guys "creepy" meanwhile those same behaviors from an alpha/attractive/winner are appealing.

NO. NO NO.

Speaking as a female, there is a MARKED AND PROFOUND difference between the way creepy loser guys behave, vs confident successful attractive guys.

EXAMPLES:
Creepy janitor at my job: mops floor while leering at me behind garbage can. CONSTANTLY stares at me and many other women. Occasionally will corner a female and say something very inappropriate when no one is around. Always thinks of new ways to be in contact in an inappropriate way (e.g. coming to our work area and sweeping extremely close to our legs for no fucking reason). Is a complete asshole to men, but leers/stalks any woman who is under 40 and not fat, and the younger/cuter the more obsessive and freakish he is. The only way to make him stop is to just finally insult the crap out of him, then he gets the message and leaves you alone, but the downside is he treats you like a "bitch" who is being a "bitch for no reason".

Guy at electronics store yesterday: I have to purchase a new phone. This will require me talking to the dorks at the electronics store. I am dreading this as it is summer and I am wearing a t-shirt and that makes it more likely I will be harassed by the copious amount of dorks in the electronics department.
So I approach one of them and say "I want to buy a phone". He sees me and stares like a deer in headlights, then directs me to the phones. He then walks away, cool.
I then ask where the restrooms are. At this point in time he smiles, walks up to me, makes it BEYOND OBVIOUS he is staring down my shirt, and then tells me where the restrooms are. Now I understand the concept of sneaking a peek, but this guy just walks up smiling and looks down like it's a free show. WTF I mean dude what makes you think that's okay? This is CREEPY and only a loser would do this. There was no reason for you to walk close to me, and obviously no reason to stare down my shirt in a most obvious manner. I was wearing a tank top its not like it was a plunging v-neck where you couldn't help it. That's why he had to WALK OVER to do it because from where he was standing he couldn't see the goods as well.

Now attractive, successful men never do that EVER. They don't think of cheap ways to stand near you, they don't hide in the bushes and leer. They are polite, they smile, they don't stalk you or make you feel creeped out in general. They give off a sense of confidence and are not overbearing.

Losers always act like they are trying to steal from you when they are near you... they can't approach directly, they don't really want to, to be honest, it's too much effort for an apathetic loser to engage a girl. They just wanna stand close and leer and maybe even touch and creep you the fuck out.

It would be great if every guy could spend a week or two as a female, they would quickly be disabused of the notion that attractive successful men behave the same as "creepy" loser guys. PS, sometimes successful guys can be creepy losers too, although usually being a loser in other areas of life goes along with being a weirdo socially as well.

There is a reason some guys are losers and some guys are not and the above reasons are just a brief few examples of things losers do . These behaviors are NOT found in winners.

Oh and there is no comparison between women being harassed vs men having overwhelming desire. Desire does not logically translate into being a creepy, harassing, freak. You have a responsibility to behave socially. It's ultimately YOUR CHOICE to act like an asshole or not. I can't just walk into a store and steal shit and act like a psycho just because i have "overwhelming desire" for the clothes I see. On the other hand there is nothing women can do to control your behavior other than wear a burka and have a male escort at all times, which no one is going to do.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 12 (40 votes cast)
I think that's what Alone w... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 1:32 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by The Devastator: | Reply

I think that's what Alone wanted the Jezebel article to be like. Very insightful.

So, um, you doing anything this weekend?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
Dear loser male:I kn... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 1:37 AM | Posted, in reply to Matt's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Dear loser male:
I know you are used to never thinking of another's perspective, because that's how guys like you roll... but you are dreaming if you think modern society is peachy keen and totally awesome for women (meanwhile it sucks balls for men who would otherwise be having a big orgy every day - LOL YEA RIGHT BETA).
The equivalent sacrifice women make is that they are not allowed to dump their man if a better prospect comes along. Just as men are wired to try to have as much sex with as many fertile partners as possible, women are wired to hook up with the fittest, best provider. Women "settle", and women are not supposed to leave him if a better guy comes along.
Now opportunities for this sort of behavior is obviously less frequently occurring than the male temptation for cheap sex with any available hole (it's rare that women find a man better than the one she settled with - it happens but not nearly as commonly as a man trying to dry hump on his coworker/friend/pillow).

In a "natural" evolutionarily logical society, many women hook up with a few awesome winners. Monogamy actually was invented to benefit men - monogamy promised every beta male there would be a woman for him, which is why christianity was huge on it, as christianity wa the religion of losers at it's inception. Monogomy didn't really benefit women that much, it benefitted men much more, decreasing conflict and malcontent and giving them a good reason to join christianity. GOOD NEWS BETAS, now you don't need to form violent bands and make war on other groups just to rape females and pass on your genes - if you join christianity , one woman for one man, one man for one woman - we all profit!

So, this society is JUST AS UNNATURAL to a females natural sexual biological instincts. IT's just much more obviously unnatural in the case of a male. And, I would again remind you all - sexual frustration is implicit with masculinity, it is the thing driving you to compete; from the moment we were human, very few males were sexually successful Just like sperm rushing toward an egg, men are driven and compete and only one or two make it, the rest die like cannon fodder in wars and competition. Men are designed to test genetic fitness.

In fact, the ironic thing is modern society is the best time to be male, sexually speaking. Monogamy bullies women into pairing up with just one man, no matter how pathetic he is. Not only do we have this dogmatic and obsolete social mores of monogamy, but we also had the sexual revolution of the 60s and women entering the workforce in the 70s... now men don't even HAVE TO MARRY women to get in her, they can just troll facebook and promise a bunch of shit, or sometimes not even that. Women have been brainwashed by media to be very sexually liberal (even though this is at odds with their instincts), women have been raised on MTV as girls, women think it's cool to be sexual and constantly lie about their sexual appetites (feminists brainwashed women into believing they are equal to men in every way - as a result, women feel ashamed if they admit they do not want sex as much as their male partner; women lie and pretend they are as sexual as men and sometimes even take testosterone to augment their sex drives. They exhibit pseudo hypersexuality to prove it, thus maintaining an internal sense of normalcy and equality feminists convinced them they needed - remember girls, if you aren't as sexual as men, you are an inhibited tool of the patriarchy!)
IN ADDITION to this steady stream of women who are ready to have sex on a dime, with NO MALE COMPETITORS to stop you... loser males always have the last resort option of wanking it to digital porn 24/7. Now, no need to even SEE OR TALK TO a female, just turn on your computer and FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP for 10 hrs straight.

At what other time in human history have males had these kinds of opportunities?

Yea, go back in time to your beloved cave man days... good luck trying to drag that woman off by her hair. Wait till that huge, hairy, strong alpha smashes your head in with a rock if he catches you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -10 (42 votes cast)
Maybe the sacrifices they'd... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 1:39 AM | Posted, in reply to Matt's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Maybe the sacrifices they'd have to make are to not be violent towards someone who rapes them or to not be violent towards the child produced by the rape? Or to not be violent in general? Like, say not killing the child after having postpartum depression caused by being raped? Or not taking a vulnerable point in time to attack the man who raped them?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Good point.Another... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 1:58 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Good point.

Another big sacrifice women make is they can't just kill their infants. First of all there is a mob of religious psychotics preventing even first trimester abortions (and only a few DECADES ago it was completely illegal for any abortion at all).
Second it is totally natural for women to just toss an unwanted or defective child off a cliff. This is imprinted in us - this is why female hormones cause the mood changes they do. Huge crash of estrogen after child birth leads to depression and craziness - go ahead, chuck that infant, you can't feed it, you can't afford it, your tribe is starving.

This is natural.

Women are guilted and shamed into being single mothers; women are brainwashed into not having abortions by hypocritical religious zealots (JESUS LUVS HIS BAY BAYS, BUT FUCK ME I WONT PAY FOR IT, I WILL JUST TALK A HOT GAME AND GUILT TRIP TEEN GIRLS WHO WERE MANIPULATED INTO HAVING SEX/DRUGGED/DRUNK BY 30 YEAR OLD MEN CUZ THATS HOW WE CHRISITANS ROOOOLLL)

Single motherhood is a big sacrifice no?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (28 votes cast)
I'm not saying you're 100% ... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 5:18 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by DataShade: | Reply

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong on 100% of what you said, but: you make a lot of frankly unsubstantiated assertions about pre-historical man. If Christianity invented monogamy out of whole cloth, why were other ancient cultures also monogamous? Isn't there a tradeoff for women in having a single, committed partner, even in terms of genetic success? I mean, one alpha with twelve other wives and sixty other children probably isn't going to be doing much to provide for you or yours, is he?

I think you need to dial back the crazy a bit and try again.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 20 (24 votes cast)
I seriously can't tell what... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 5:25 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by DataShade: | Reply

I seriously can't tell what point you're trying to make, other than "I hate this guy I hate."

You talk like you hate Christianity as stagnant, oppressive zealotry, but the alternative you present is unchecked baby-killing. Which of those options are you advocating for? "I hate you" is a lot quicker and has the same likelihood of convincing your opponents as whatever it is you're typing.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (16 votes cast)
Rape is a natural (drakes d... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 8:01 AM | Posted by ErisGuy: | Reply

Rape is a natural (drakes do it) sexual orientation oppressed by our sexophoboic Christo-feminist culture. I believe all the genders (LGB2SVP5MRST3Z2) should be respected, free, and able to marry.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (13 votes cast)
TLP I really enjoyed this a... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 8:05 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

TLP I really enjoyed this article.

Regarding the comments in general: how long since the media will start using alpha and beta male regularly? I will really become the next ghost rider once they enter the common language

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
It's strange that Mr. Adams... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 8:10 AM | Posted by Thin-Skinned Mista-Beta: | Reply

It's strange that Mr. Adams provokes such outrage. He isn't saying anything that a thousand feminists haven't already said before;
"Men are barbaric with animal instincts that civilisation must subdue."

As a corollary, it's no stretch for him to interpret that the good sweet innocent women-folk find it less of a challenge to conform to social norms. He doesn't apologise for the aggression and barbarity nor does he defend rape and adultery. His modest proposal is merely to give men a little chemical help so that they can more easily conform to the image that women say they want.

This contribution takes this thinking to its logical but absurd conclusion, if social institutions fail to control an ugly male nature then a biological or chemical solution could be considered. Of course what I suspect he is actually trying to do is to provoke us to reflect on the social institutions as well as our assumptions about equality that lead us to believe that men and women are identical in every way.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (13 votes cast)
@The Devastator,<blo... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 8:28 AM | Posted, in reply to The Devastator's comment, by Hypocrisy Illustrated: | Reply

@The Devastator,


Go look at some porn. It'll be okay in the morning


Thanks for the tip. I think I've heard something about this "porn" stuff. Supposedly it's even available on these "internets." Perhaps you can give me some hints where I can find this? It would be pictures of females, attractive females, that I'd be most interested in. If you know where to find them I'd be much obliged.

All that nice tasty arousing media content is probably already giving modern men a convenient non-prescription DIY way of lowering their hormonal load and as a result reducing their libido. Is Mr. Adams prescription for chemical castration becoming increasingly unnecessary?

Modern sex positive propaganda tries to assert, without presenting convincing scientific proof, that masturbation is completely harmless and without consequence. We poor wankers are probably already just too enervated to notice any difference with all that potential vitality and energy that we are aimlessly dissipating while at the same time becoming ever more asocial and neurotic if not also at least a little bit nuts.

At least they do warn that jerkin' off probably causes chronic logorrhoea and run-on sentences not to mention nasty incurable narcissism.

But what do say will be okay in the morning?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (11 votes cast)
It's strange that ... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 9:48 AM | Posted, in reply to Thin-Skinned Mista-Beta's comment, by DataShade: | Reply

It's strange that Mr. Adams provokes such outrage.
Strange how? In this, and his other controversial writings, he's either trying to provoke outrage, or - if this and the others are sincere attempts at calm, reasoned debate - he is so socially maladapted he should keep out of reach of the public, for his own safety.
He isn't saying anything that a thousand feminists haven't already said before; "Men are barbaric with animal instincts that civilisation must subdue."
I understand your intent towards hyperbole, but you'll need to provide a citation for that, preferably one from a written article and not an extemporaneous or even off-the-record conversation. Every anti-feminist I've spoken to in the last 10 years fervently believes what you say to be true, but none of the feminists I've met ever said that (even the ones teaching the general requirement courses in college). If you can't find that exact citation, but "remember" one or more of them saying "something like that," it's possible that they were trying to say something else entirely which you interpreted in an exaggeratedly negative manner so as to more easily dismiss the complaint as 'radical' or 'hysterical.'

Besides: what was said doesn't matter unless
1.) it's true,
2.) it's a reliable enough description to adequately predict future events, or
3.) it's a premise which is widely enough agreed upon to form a basis for social policy.

Now, to the extent that "men are (or rather, can be) barbaric and animalistic and need to be subdued" is true, I think it's safe to say civilization's willingness to subdue barbaric behaviors long precedes the feminist movement, and none of the societies before us needed chemical castration.

As a corollary, it's no stretch for him to interpret that the good sweet innocent women-folk find it less of a challenge to conform to social norms.

I think that's true, very, very true. It's no stretch for Adams to interpret that, but TLP already covered that: the options are rage (ie, suicide) or the delusion that The Matrix is programmed against you.

As an aside, your cognitive dissonance is painful to reconcile: you presented an ideal which you believe to be a central tenant of feminism, but you go on to argue that women had and/or have it easy. Why do you suppose the Feminist Movement got started? Do you think it was because women had finally cowed menfolk to the point where they could abandon the shadow government through which they had secretly dominated the last thousand or so years of andro-centric western world? Do you believe that, or simply believe that Adams believes it?

He doesn't apologise for the aggression and barbarity nor does he defend rape and adultery.

He doesn't apologise for it, he just "I'm just saying"s how it's the natural order.

His modest proposal is merely to give men a little chemical help so that they can more easily conform to the image that women say they wantwhat Adams wants to be true.

Had to fix that for you: see, reductio ad absurdum is one of my favorite rhetorical tools, but it works by multiplying the flaws of the argument until they're so huge compared to the norm that the norm is no longer acceptable - that even if the extreme case you suggest is incredibly rare compared to the norm. What that means, tho', is that if any of the flaws in the base are from you - mistake, misinterpretation, misrepresentation - then instead of your opponent looking foolish, you do.

Since Adams is arguing against current societal norms his opponent, to some extent, is society; the only people excluded from his absurdist argument are the people who agree with him, and when your target group is that large, it's not hard to find someone who'll get outraged.

Also, I had to fix that for you because it's simply not true that all women want the same kind of men; the concept is laughable on its face. Hell, if you go to a college with a thriving liberal arts curriculum (or live in a city with one) and go to the right bars/clubs/bookstores/coffeeshops you can meet, flirt with, and have sex with a social-sciences major feminist girl who puts herself pretty far along the S-end of the D/s spectrum. (If you weren't a Boy Scout, I recommend picking up the handbook for the section on lashing. Memorize a few of the good ones and make sure you can tie a bowline one-handed; you'll want to know at least one knot that doesn't go taut around her wrists.)

Seriously, is it really that much to ask that you take "no" for an answer, take "the cold shoulder" for "no," and have enough self-respect to only ever try when the situation can't be interpreted as a power-imbalance in your favor?


This contribution takes this thinking

which we can't prove anyone but Adams and his supporters use
to its logical but absurd conclusion, if social institutions fail to control an ugly male nature then a biological or chemical solution could be considered.
Come on, "could" be considered? You're going to let your balls shrivel up and wuss out on us now?
Of course what I suspect he is actually trying to do is to provoke us to reflect on the social institutions as well as our assumptions about equality that lead us to believe that men and women are identical in every way.

Oh man, "identical in every way?" [citation needed], man, it's equal, as in
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, not identical.

That's too many strawmen arguments in one post, I hope I deconstructed them all.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (15 votes cast)
All that nice tast... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 9:58 AM | Posted, in reply to Hypocrisy Illustrated's comment, by DataShade: | Reply

All that nice tasty arousing media content is probably already giving modern men a convenient non-prescription DIY way of lowering their hormonal load and as a result reducing their libido. Is Mr. Adams prescription for chemical castration becoming increasingly unnecessary?

Ahh, I see now: you're new here; you didn't display any knowledge of Adams' past controversies (or don't care because he's saying what you want to be true) and you haven't read TLP's archives. I'm not a psychiatrist so I'll appeal to our host's authority on the matter: I agree completely when TLP says that the upswing in masturbation-instead-of-sex isn't anything porn-related, it's about it being easier to fantasize to yourself than actually connect with another person. Joe Narcissist would rather fantasize about his wife being a MILF, fuckable by other men (and thus be a prize which conveys status upon himself). He's slowing, he's graying, he's flabby; he's not sexy anymore, but she is.


I'm annoyed enough at you that I'm sure I sound like an asshole, but you really owe it to yourself to go to the archives and read through everything. TLP basically memes himself - summarizing his own previous articles as single-sentence throwaway phrases and peppering his new articles with references to the old, rather than re-explain his entire philosophy every time. That, or just leave, because you're probably never going to 'get' the site if you don't want to take the time to read it all.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
Modern sex positiv... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 10:12 AM | Posted, in reply to Hypocrisy Illustrated's comment, by DataShade: | Reply

Modern sex positive propaganda tries to assert, without presenting convincing scientific proof, that masturbation is completely harmless and without consequence. We poor wankers are probably already just too enervated to notice any difference with all that potential vitality and energy that we are aimlessly dissipating while at the same time becoming ever more asocial and neurotic if not also at least a little bit nuts.

"I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my ... essence."

Seriously, I don't want to know what you think is "convincing scientific proof" that masturbation is harmless. I can guarantee you that I've never harmed myself - but maybe I'm just not as enthusiastic as you are? Again, I don't really want to know details, and I'm sure you don't want to know mine. Suffice it to say I feel my anecdotal/empirical evidence is quite convincing.

Also: if your personal experiences lead you to believe that - as opposed to hearsay and religious instruction - you should better guard knowledge of your sexual failings and mediocrity. I won't make fun of you for it, but someone will.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
"There are other words, sur... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 10:32 AM | Posted by Liz: | Reply

"There are other words, sure, but just like the above none of them refute his point, they're just ad hominem padding, "he's a jerk for thinking it." I'm sure your regular readers agree, but for the dummies among us, can you perhaps explain why? Which leads me to suspect that she doesn't actually know why it's wrong, only that it is wrong."

This is a problem I have with a lot of feminist blogs. Sometimes I agree with what they're saying. Sometimes I disagree. That's not the point. The point is that, a lot of the time, they'll assume that some things are so obvious that all they need to do is follow up with something like "Ugh" or "Disturbing". Apparently no one ever comes to it from a completely different viewpoint.

To a certain extent, everyone has assumptions that they don't think to question, especially on the internet. But these blogs have a special problem in that it seems to be more severe and more common in their cases. It's not intellectually stimulating, it's not going to change any minds and, in a lot of cases, it's poor writing.

We all have blogs that we keep reading even if we disagree with a lot - or even all - of what's said, because it's so interesting or though provoking or whatever. That doesn't happen in these cases. It just seems to be an echo chamber. Most blogs with readership at least feel the need to justify themselves - not so in the case of many of the feminist blogs.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 10 (12 votes cast)
"Women 'settle', and women ... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 10:43 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Matt: | Reply

"Women 'settle', and women are not supposed to leave him if a better guy comes along."

In what society are you living? One where less than two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women? One where women can't fully expect (and in fact, demand) to be rewarded by the legal system for breaking up marriages?

Remember the rule...no citing of old social trends no longer enforced.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (13 votes cast)
In what society are you ... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 11:28 AM | Posted by philtrum: | Reply

In what society are you living? One where less than two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women? One where women can't fully expect (and in fact, demand) to be rewarded by the legal system for breaking up marriages?

This is standard MRA rhetoric and barely worth responding to, but initiating a divorce != single-handedly breaking up a marriage. A man who cheats on or abuses his wife, for example, has no call to blame her exclusively for the breakdown of the marriage simply because she made the first call to a lawyer. Some women divorce their husband for frivolous reasons, yes -- but if you're going to claim every woman who initiates a divorce does so for a frivolous reason, you need evidence.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (20 votes cast)
On wankers,... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 11:40 AM | Posted, in reply to DataShade's comment, by Hypocrisy Illustrated: | Reply

On wankers,


You know what, even I actually want to believe the claims that it is harmless as they say.
I hate to think that I've been messin' with my brain for so long. And we've been talking about wanting to believe something...

I've heard the many claims that assert that it is harmless, but these are never accompanied with any evidence about why they have reached this conclusion. You yourself claim only "anecdotal evidence" that you have never noticed any harm from your "self-abuse." (Isn't that a great term no matter how loaded it is?) Ask smokers or any other self-deluded people who engage in self-destructive behaviour if they've suffered any harm? Do you expect a straight answer?

As far as masturbation goes, have we ever really examined habitual wankers to see what lasting changes the many solitary orgasms frequently flooding the brain with various hormones and neurotransmitters leave. It isn't impossible is it? Aren't you at least curious too?

I'm not sure either what "conclusive scientific proof" that demonstrated that masturbation is without consequences would look like. Perhaps if they've done some long range observations, I don't know, maybe functional MRI scans over 20 to 40 years and observed no significant difference between the notorious wankers and their more virtuous abstinent counterparts, it might be a start.

When any new psychopharmaceuticals are to be released on the market, they go through pretty rigourous testing for efficacy or side effects. What about all those chemicals in the brain unleashed by a behaviour as familiar as masturbation? We may take it for granted, because it's older than civilisation itself, but my scientific curiosity is unsatisfied by mere assertions and hopeful reassurances.

If you are aware of any existing reliable long term study, it would be fascinating.
I'm just skeptical that they could ever find enough honest virtuous and disciplined fellas for the control group in order to compare to the chronic wankers.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
It's strange that Mr. Ad... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 11:49 AM | Posted by philtrum: | Reply

It's strange that Mr. Adams provokes such outrage. He isn't saying anything that a thousand feminists haven't already said before;
"Men are barbaric with animal instincts that civilisation must subdue."

Sigh. There are many thousands of feminists in the world, so it is entirely possible that a thousand feminists have said this, but this is nonetheless a straw feminist. Far more common in feminist circles is the belief that men do not have to behave this way, that they can choose not to abuse and rape, and that they should therefore be held accountable for their aggressive behaviours.

It's the "holding accountable" that Adams appears to hate so much.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 14 (20 votes cast)
@ DataShadeI appre... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 12:21 PM | Posted, in reply to DataShade's comment, by Hypocrisy Illustrated: | Reply

@ DataShade

I appreciate your suggestion "you really owe it to yourself to go to the archives and read through everything. TLP..."

While I haven't read the entire corpus of the musings according to Scott Adams, I confess that I had already been a lurking fan long before my debut in this little thread.

I have thoroughly enjoyed combing through TLP's back archives after I discovered a referral to the site from Susan Walsh's "Hooking up Smart"

I still can't quite put my finger on what TLP is expressing that I find so appealing.

I usually have a strange hunger that usually goes unsated by most media, but TLP's little morsels leave me with the most peculiar feeling. On the one hand there is that uncertain queasiness I feel, but hey for a moment I don't notice that hunger any longer. Perhaps it's all just middlebrow philosophical pornography that gives me something for a brief distraction of a little pointless mental masturbation. But maybe there is actually some real substance there.

But since this was one of those rare times that one of TLP's current remarks didn't resonate, I felt compelled to join the discussion.

I do wish I had more of a philosophical roadmap which suggested an accessible route for a novice / layman to explore more deeply. Although I took some philosophy classes back in college, I have to concede that it all went too fast and found it overwhelming. I still couldn't really tell you what post-modern, deconstruction, feminism or existentialism mean. My curiosity undiminished I still unfortunately haven't found the right gateway literature that would invite me to continued deeper exploration.

Maybe it's too much too ask; probably it's contrary to the point of this whole exercise, but I'd appreciate some accessible literature tips to help make more sense of everythig. Am I alone?

All the same, I appreciate the patience taking time to consider my perhaps facile remarks. I suppose patience and respect is the least any of us should bring.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
@ DataShadeI appre... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 12:22 PM | Posted by Hypocrisy Illustrated: | Reply

@ DataShade

I appreciate your suggestion "you really owe it to yourself to go to the archives and read through everything. TLP..."

While I haven't read the entire corpus of the musings according to Scott Adams, I confess that I had already been a lurking fan long before my debut in this little thread.

I have thoroughly enjoyed combing through TLP's back archives after I discovered a referral to the site from Susan Walsh's "Hooking up Smart"

I still can't quite put my finger on what TLP is expressing that I find so appealing.

I usually have a strange hunger that usually goes unsated by most media, but TLP's little morsels leave me with the most peculiar feeling. On the one hand there is that uncertain queasiness I feel, but hey for a moment I don't notice that hunger any longer. Perhaps it's all just middlebrow philosophical pornography that gives me something for a brief distraction of a little pointless mental masturbation. But maybe there is actually some real substance there.

But since this was one of those rare times that one of TLP's current remarks didn't resonate, I felt compelled to join the discussion.

I do wish I had more of a philosophical roadmap which suggested an accessible route for a novice / layman to explore more deeply. Although I took some philosophy classes back in college, I have to concede that it all went too fast and found it overwhelming. I still couldn't really tell you what post-modern, deconstruction, feminism or existentialism mean. My curiosity undiminished I still unfortunately haven't found the right gateway literature that would invite me to continued deeper exploration.

Maybe it's too much too ask; probably it's contrary to the point of this whole exercise, but I'd appreciate some accessible literature tips to help make more sense of everythig. Am I alone?

All the same, I appreciate the patience taking time to consider my perhaps facile remarks. I suppose patience and respect is the least any of us should bring.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
Has Scott Adams thought of ... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 12:35 PM | Posted by Obladee: | Reply

Has Scott Adams thought of moving to France? Maybe he should give Gerard Depardieu a call.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
What part of my writing lea... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 1:56 PM | Posted by Scott Adams: | Reply

What part of my writing leads you to believe I'm blaming women for the rules of society?

Scott Adams

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (13 votes cast)
hey Scott... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 2:56 PM | Posted by BT: | Reply

hey Scott

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
warning this comment is not... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 3:54 PM | Posted by res ipsa: | Reply

warning this comment is not witty.

the reason salon and jezebel didn't refute adams with substantive arguments is because they essentially agreed with his basic premise, but they can't bring themselves to say, "yeah, all men really just want to rape every woman they see, and are biologically programmed to want to, which means it isn't their fault, and that women really are keeping them from expressing their true selves...but damn it rape is bad." foot stomp. pout.

this creates an uncomfortable level cognitive dissonance in them--if something is natural/instinctual, one can't be blamed for it, so men can't be blamed for raping women, but women shouldn't have to be raped, so...aww, fuck it, just deflect with the time honored, "i know what you are but what am i" strategy. rape is bad. the end.

the real problem here is that the media class as a whole is woefully ignorant about just about everything, despite the fact that most have degrees from elite colleges. and as a class they hold opinion to be more valuable than fact. they can't rebut adams's argument because they don't know enough about anything to rebut it with, other than "everyone knows that rape is bad, and everyone knows that stereotyping is bad." so to them the reply, "oh yea, rape is bad, and calling all men rapists proves you suck." is full of win to them. they're like, "i just so pawned you!" it doesn't prove adams was right. it proves they are jackasses.

you have to remember that the media class where neither the cool kids, nor the smart kids, in school. they were just members of that vast undifferentiated blandness, whose only goal was to be a cool kid. they are ass-kissers extraordinaire, who believe that opinion is superior to fact--and that explains everything you ever need to know about why they write the way they do about anything.

there are two rebuttals to adams's argument. the first is historical and the second is anthropological.

it is simply historically inaccurate to claim that women created and enforced the prohibition on rape. rape has been strongly prohibited in all civilizations for the last 6,000 years. way before women had any say in it. and it wasn't prohibited out of concerns for feminine squeamishness to being brutally, dry fucked and slapped around a little (or a lot) against their will.

the legal and social prohibitions on rape were created by and for the benefit of men. they date from the time when women literally were property, first of their fathers, and then of their husbands. the prohibition on rape historically has always been just another prohibition against fucking with someone else's shit.

the quaint idea that women shouldn't be raped because they might not like it so much, is a pretty new concept, legally and socially. remember it is only within the last 20-30 that wives could be legally raped by their husbands, and not even all US jurisdictions recognize this right still today.

the stronger argument is actually that rape is all but unheard of in hunter gathering societies, the closets thing we have to cave-man-ishness. so the idea that the only thing keeping men from raping every woman they see is the feminazi totalitarian state, is false. hunter gatherers are non-hierarchical, they lack head men, and they lack laws, yet rape is very uncommon (however, the punishment is brutal and swift and often carried out by the victim herself, sometimes with some friends)--and keep in mind, this is in a situation where the people all but naked all of the time.

however, for my money, the best rebuttal to the argument that men have been emasculated is that never before in the history of civilization have so many men had so much access to so many sexual opportunities. far from being neutered, modern american society had become hyper-sexualized.

do you really think average joes in the victorian period were having their first blow jobs before they were 13 in their school bathrooms in between class? or that single men in their 20s- and 30s in the 1950s could routinely hook up with women at bars and fuck on the first date?

hell, until the 1970s, how many men in the last 6000 years could fuck any one but their own wife? ever? for as long they lived? how many percentage wise even had the luxury of a wife?

yeah, the sexual opportunities of men have really been cock blocked by birth control-loving, abortion-having, double-standard-hating, bra-less feminists...you dumb fucks--feminists were the best thing that ever happened to your wet-dreams.

the truth of the matter it that thing that men who think like adams are really so angsty about is that now you all realize that most of you are as sexually appealing as a wet sack of potatoes.

in a world where everyone can have what he or she can catch, it fucking sucks to be ugly...a hundred thousand years ago, it would be NO different than today, 'cept instead of a fleshlight, you'd be consoling yourself with dead frog like this little fella: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI4xVeRjunk

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 24 (30 votes cast)
If this article and nothing... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 5:35 PM | Posted by Ryan McKenna: | Reply

If this article and nothing else worth reading was in a book, I would recommend it to a friend.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
... nah. He's half-right. M... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 6:36 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

... nah. He's half-right. Masculine impulses- aggression, speaking up, challenging the status-quo- are not totally rejected. They're just funneled into imperialistic drives. You can hurt people and shoot people and take things, but only if you're taking them from other countries and giving the stuff to the chiefs on top.

It's sometimes said that a government is defined as that which claims a monopoly on force. I say it's that which claims a monopoly on the fruits of force.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
It's men who made the rules... (Below threshold)

July 2, 2011 9:37 PM | Posted by Shh: | Reply

It's men who made the rules. Women are just better at following them.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (12 votes cast)
There is a reason ... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 12:30 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

There is a reason some guys are losers and some guys are not and the above reasons are just a brief few examples of things losers do . These behaviors are NOT found in winners.

Your entire post suggests that women have all the power in regard to selecting who wins and who doesn't.
This is part of what Adams is talking about.

Men have had to shift their preferences and change themselves; some even going to extent of paying for a dating coach in the form of a "pickup artist", the most popular of which wears a purple fur lined suit and top hat.

Women...have to not be obese.
A woman could be a total loser in other areas, but as long as she isn't obese, it will not be hard for her to obtain a mate.

Because men care about a vagina attached to a decent body/face.
Women want a certain persona with a penis attached. The persona doesn't have to be real, it just has to be convincing. Stories of women dating what turn out to be con men are endless.
Countless women actually waste time and resources on complete and utter fraud; some of these women are even attractive.
Contrast this with men scammed by "mail order brides", who are usually desperate, old and of average appearance.

The equality that feminists supposedly promote will never happen until men and women have equal selective power.
If women were to change their preferences, this could be achieved rather easily.
Oh wait, I forgot that feminism is about crushing the male framework of the world.
Sorry women, just go with the flow and do whatever, it's what you're best at.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (17 votes cast)
Women are not SUPPOSED to d... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 12:44 AM | Posted, in reply to Matt's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Women are not SUPPOSED to dump their husbands/boyfriends for greener pastures, however many women still do it.

Just as many men still rape, drug and drink teen girls to semi-consciousness, manipulate unwilling girls into sex, lie to girls for sex , and cheat on their wives ... many women will also totally dump their man if a better one comes along (from their perspective).

The argument was not "women never do anything bad", the argument was "society sucks for women and men both, it's unnatural for both men and women"

The only difference is that men think they are gods and are selfish by nature and rarely consider others wants/needs the way women intrinsically do, so men are always bitching and moaning how their gaping void of needs and wants isn't satisfied. The irony is this time more than any other time in human history is the best to be male from a sexual stand point. Minimal competition, women brainwashed into being hypersexual, couples with more than two partners are viewed as freakish (meaning alphas cant hog all the women), AND the cherry on top is endless on demand digital porn - its a sexual buffet out there for men. It was waaaay harder to get sexual gratification before modernity.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
The problem is not masturba... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 12:48 AM | Posted, in reply to Hypocrisy Illustrated's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

The problem is not masturbation. Masturbation is actually quite natural even babies do it.

The problem is using masturbation (plus digital porn) as a surrogate for normal interactions with women, normal sex. In modern world with the internet and cable and video cameras, a sufficiently pathetic man sometimes decides fussing with women just isn't worth the effort.

A lot of men, such as yourself, have been doing this since childhood and it's beyond obvious when you meet them. They say things like "men have overwhelming desire and its not their fault if they act like creeps".

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
The other problem with your... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 12:54 AM | Posted, in reply to Hypocrisy Illustrated's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

The other problem with your post is you are conflating "occasional masturbation" with "pathological wacking off as a surrogate for normal sex".

You condemn masturbation in general, by stating that being a chronic wacker who climaxes alone all the time is probably screwing his brain wiring. I mean, duh, I don't think anyone would argue that someone who is behaving like the masturbating bear is normal... however I don't think the masturbation is the cause, it's more the result of isolation and a deficient ability to connect to people.

The problem is this subset of loser men is not people who masturbate IN GENERAL. Everyone pretty much masturbates from time to time, men do it more often. Masturbation is normal and natural and it has been shown to have positive benefits on stress (hence TLPs recommendations to orgasm to get to sleep - thing is masturbation works just as well as real sex, the key is the orgasm not the "accomplishment" of having sex, as orgasm reduces stress and produces endorphins).


I have a feeling you are blaming masturbation for your social / emotional problems, but the causality is reversed. You wack off to porn all the time because of your problems caring about people and having motivation, not the other way around. Normal people do not find masturbation to be a sufficient substitute for real relationships and sex.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
People like TLP because he ... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 12:59 AM | Posted, in reply to Hypocrisy Illustrated's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

People like TLP because he always has a firm point of view that seems immutable, like the word of god, yet he gives the reader this illusion that there is so much complexity. It's a wonderful trick.

All people want to be told what to think in a religious-dogma sort of way (e.g. NARCISSISM CAUSES EVERYTHING) but they want to maintain a conscious perception of themselves as seeing subtleties everywhere and things being gray and they are oh so smart for that.

TLP is like crack for these people.

I like TLP for these reasons as well, although I am quite aware of the trick, much in the way I am aware that by inhaling a starbucks coffee I am feeding my severe caffeine addiction but man oh man does it feel good anyway.

Plus I love anyone who tries to find the "Real meaning" behind the bullshit we see, even if I don't agree with their perspectives it is just refreshing to bei n a place where it is taken for granted that everything is not as it seems, which we all know intuitively but try to ignore because everyone else is pretending to ignore it too.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
OH SNAP there is going to b... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 1:01 AM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

OH SNAP there is going to be a battle of famous bloggers.

This is like when two elephant seals fight to the death for their harem, right? Only instead of harems the stakes are viewers and ego.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Hey dumbass,Women ... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 1:25 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Hey dumbass,

Women are not interested in hookups. Sure, if a woman wants to hook up all she needs to be is not obese (and we all know that obese women can still get it, its just that you won't BRAG about it).

However, if a woman wants a RELATIONSHIP, thats when things are complicated, and it's very hard for a woman to find a decent non cheating non dog of a man (e.g. you) for a relationship partner. It's just as hard for her as it is for someone like you to find a female-shaped body to fuck without drugging/raping it.


Women do get taken in for cons - what a bitch, that guy who was lying to her tricked her , omg that bitch. Hello does this even make sense to you?

Men also get taken in for cons.
If you wouldn't hit this you are a TOTAL LIAR.
Google pictures her name. GEt ready for a surpriiise.


So are you a shallow easily manipulated idiot now? Or something?

Or are you telling yourself that it's "different" because your point is that you could do the same thing as the con men except you have too much INTEGRITY to compromise yourself and lie about who you are and play those dumb bitches' game? In which case you would be absolutely lying to yourself to justify your unattractiveness to women. And you are also blaming women for not wanting a selfish manipulative exploitative contribute-nothing loser creep like you.


"Hi, I dont care about you, I have nothing to offer, I am unattractive and short, I make


Men don't want mail order brides - men don't want to MARRY the body he just fucked. He wants the body to leave afterward. Only a very specific creepy fuck of a man actually wants to own the body - it's sort of like liking the plate in a public restaurant, only a few freaks do this and it is usually a psychological problem. Similar only super low down men want to pay to marry someone - average and above average men do not desire marriage as much because they hold a higher opinion of themselves and know they can score chicks for free.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -10 (14 votes cast)
Women do get taken... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 3:31 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Women do get taken in for cons - what a bitch, that guy who was lying to her tricked her , omg that bitch. Hello does this even make sense to you?

Being suckered doesn't make you a bitch, it makes you a sucker.
The best way to avoid being a sucker is by taking safe bets.
But who wants a safe bet right? That'd be boring.

So are you a shallow easily manipulated idiot now? Or something?
A post-op transexual actually has everything they say they have. Female parts, female hormones, etc... That aside, my point was that every woman ever should stop being attracted to the persona. The persona is a lie.
are you telling yourself that it's "different" because your point is that you could do the same thing as the con men except you have too much INTEGRITY to compromise yourself and lie about who you are and play those dumb bitches' game?

I couldn't convince anyone that I'm something I'm not.
Not "I wouldn't", I couldn't.
I'm me and nothing I do will change that.
Thus, in my eyes, the success of liars says more about the preferences of women than it does about anything else.


Men don't want mail order brides - men don't want to MARRY the body he just fucked.

As much as women wish this to be true, it isn't.
In Japan, men marry video game characters and pillow covers.
As soon as a fuckable fembot is in commercial production, men will buy them.
And then, as Scott Adams suggests, perhaps women won't be necessary.

That's not what I want to happen, but I'm not the one with the power to change it.
Women are.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
Wow, see, the average betwe... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 6:12 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Ellie: | Reply

Wow, see, the average between my four (female) best friends is about seven guys each. And that's only because one of us wants to wait until marriage. Women are like snow flakes and each have different sexualities. So do men (also, who do you think the straight boys are all hooking up with?). But thank you so much for generalising and limiting your gender so viciously.

I would go on to give a resounding 'Fuck you!' for generalising my father, my brother, my male friends and my work mates (don't have a boyfriend, too busy hooking up) as want-to-be-rapists because they're single and would like to meet holisticly attractive people but before you really get started you go inchoherent:

"Women do get taken in for cons - what a bitch, that guy who was lying to her tricked her , omg that bitch. Hello does this even make sense to you?"

Seriously, you live in a sad, lonely world if it's been your experience that people's first reaction is to call the victim, who's just been used sexually, emotionally and/or finacially, a 'bitch.' Why? did she have it coming? Is that even the point at this moment when a person is hurting?

You come from a bad place but not everyone else does. So don't project your thoughts onto other's actions. And be happy. There's some really nice people in this world. Maybe if you're not accusing everybody and being so sexually and emotionally frigid you might meet someone that makes it all worth it? Smile back once in a while.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (12 votes cast)
"TLP is like crack..."... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 6:36 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Hypocrisy Illustrated: | Reply

"TLP is like crack..."

Indeed, not a bad comparison

I think of it more like a little snack that doesn't really provide lasting sustenance.

It might be like a hamburger when you are hungry; somehow it works, but is not entirely satisfying.

I'm also certain that not even a big multicourse meal would provide lasting relief.

What I really want is some kind a dietician or cooking instructor, to kind of hold my hand a little, and help me make up a meal plan so I can gradually feed myself to (philosophical) fitness.

Psychotherapist?
I doubt that it's the right kind of diet.


------

I also love trying to see the "real meaning" behind the bullshit we see everyday.

Indeed TLP poses some interesting questions and challenges some of the most basic assumptions that we take all for granted.

Nevertheless I'm not sure all this questioning is healthy. The more surfaces I scratch, the more façades come tumbling down. The more I think about how everything is not as it seems, the more I feel queasy.

Maybe I just need to join (or found my own) cult. That way I could just outline a few principles on a little mission card that I could always refer to whenever I'm feeling that horrible doubt.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
"So the next time a bunch o... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 9:53 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"So the next time a bunch of guys sit around bitching about how women prevent them from having lots of sex, they need to remember that in the REAL WORLD very few males were reproductively successful. Your average dilbert would die a beta male, childless, and probably wouldn’t even dream of challenging the alphas in his tribe."

Eh, nothing like trying to use evolutionary biology to shore up a personal viewpoint while totally ignoring the fact that beta males actually do procreate (both in the case of our chimp cousins and us humans) - they just use different reproductive strategies than alpha males (with complicity from females).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 10 (12 votes cast)
"fresh out of Hitlers"... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 10:25 AM | Posted, in reply to DataShade's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"fresh out of Hitlers"

Thank you for that, I may have to use that some time in the future.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
"...TLP already covered tha... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 10:50 AM | Posted, in reply to DataShade's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"...TLP already covered that: the options are rage (ie, suicide) or the delusion that The Matrix is programmed against you."

Please excuse me being pedantic but it seems important to point out that the rage is present and the motivating emotion, the "option" is how that rage is dealt with and not the rage itself which is already present - is the rage internalized and focused on the self (which may result in suicide but can also result in actually getting help dealing with the rage and fear/frustration/vulnerability that fuels the rage) or is the rage externalized and projected onto someone/thing else (which can be a means to avoid owning ones own emotions and personal responsibility). Also, I think it's worth mentioning that rage and anger are different things - even if people often use the words interchangeably. Rage (to me at least) implies a deep old source of wounding - it's about the past and bringing old wounds into the present (often in ways that are inappropriate and disproportionate to the current situation - it's analogous to an old smoldering fire that flares up, it's also very smoky and obscures vision). Anger, on the other hand, is about an immediate response to a situation where one feels threatened - it's in the moment and passes quickly if it's not used to fuel the smoldering fires of rage.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Adam's comics aren't really... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 11:49 AM | Posted by fifi: | Reply

Adam's comics aren't really any kind of in-depth social commentary - they're norm reinforcing pseudo-commentary that leans more towards Garfield than The Far Side.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
It's fascinating to watch p... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 1:21 PM | Posted by Scott Adams: | Reply

It's fascinating to watch people debating their own imagination.

Should any of you choose to debate anything I actually said, I would be interested in that.

Scott Adams

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (20 votes cast)
Up there a ways I remarked ... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 1:55 PM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by Liora: | Reply

Up there a ways I remarked on the fact that you sandwiched rape between tweeting and cheating--I think that is worthy of some discussion. I also challenged the notion that women's "natural instincts" cause us to engage more easily in socially sanctioned behaviors. And I remarked that "the media tells us that what Adams is saying is true, even as the media tells us it is wrong to say it is true." None of these points is the product of my imagination, and I would be happy to engage in a dialogue about any/all of them.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
I'm sure you would love a d... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 2:17 PM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I'm sure you would love a debate but that would involve taking what you're proposing seriously and there's not much reason to do that since you're not presenting any actual evidence or original ideas. The fact that you have been caught red handed engaging in sockpuppetry (particularly because it was as an attempt at image control and not for lulz), lessens your credibility/integrity even more.

A major and important point of discussion around these parts are made in this segment of the post - "It's probably unnecessary but still completely worth pointing out that the only reason anyone is offended by Scott Adams is that he is Scott Adams the famous cartoonist, and not Scott Adams the retail manager at Best Buy."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (14 votes cast)
what the hell is the point ... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 2:29 PM | Posted, in reply to Gary's comment, by Steve: | Reply

what the hell is the point of your post?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"So the next time a bunch o... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 2:33 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Steve: | Reply

"So the next time a bunch of guys sit around bitching about how women prevent them from having lots of sex, they need to remember that in the REAL WORLD very few males were reproductively successful. Your average dilbert would die a beta male, childless, and probably wouldn’t even dream of challenging the alphas in his tribe."

how much bullshit did you pack in a few lines of text?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
However it's quite boring d... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 3:11 PM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

However it's quite boring discussing biology and society with the scientifically illiterate (whether it's fundie christians or a guy who draws a mainstream comic) who are making claims about what is and isn't "natural" while making it abundantly clear they don't have a clue. If it wasn't so pathetic it might be amusing to watch them claim that this is what the people they've trying to get some attention from by being oppositional are doing while seemingly being totally unaware of their own attempts to present ideology and personal bias as scientific fact.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
Jeez, talk about wrestling ... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 4:01 PM | Posted by EH: | Reply

Jeez, talk about wrestling with pigs.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Arun: don't bother; you're ... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 4:40 PM | Posted, in reply to Arun's comment, by S: | Reply

Arun: don't bother; you're just going to get downvoted by a bunch of rabid fanbois.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Yo Scotty, sorry to go off ... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 6:11 PM | Posted by BT: | Reply

Yo Scotty, sorry to go off topic:

Back when you were funny (to me) and I was like 9 I sent you a fan email from my school, and after i sent it, i realized I had just typed "You are funny guy" without the article "a." It was my first case of internet anxiety and i was all "what if he doesn't think i'm c o o l ... .."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
it feels good to get that o... (Below threshold)

July 3, 2011 6:13 PM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by BT: | Reply

it feels good to get that off my chest

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Rock on girlfriend! Show th... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2011 12:09 AM | Posted, in reply to Ellie's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Rock on girlfriend! Show those boys you are on their side! You're not like all those other girls!

It's beyond LOLZY you didn't even comprehend half of what I said yet shadow-argued voraciously all the same.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
"But in general, society is... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2011 12:20 AM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by TheCoconutChef: | Reply

"But in general, society is organized as a virtual prison for men’s natural desires. I don’t have a solution in mind. It’s a zero sum game. If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa."

This part (sort of, see below).

Note what TLP said: "That's Scott Adams, writing the not original "men are oppressed in a female controlled society" argument."

Which applies to what you said.

This question: "What part of my writing leads you to believe I'm blaming women for the rules of society?" doesn't encompass what TLP said.

It's female controlled in the sense that, in your view, the rules strongly favors female, regardless of who actually did set up the rules.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
Exactly. This is the nub o... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2011 2:00 AM | Posted, in reply to TheCoconutChef's comment, by philtrum: | Reply

Exactly. This is the nub of it:

"It’s a zero sum game. If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa."

If one accepts that Adams isn't saying we live in a society controlled by women (in other words, that he's saying men deliberately chose to "imprison" themselves for some reason), this is still asinine. The interests of men and those of women are not diametrically opposed.

Even by the most charitable, literal reading, the statement is pointless: yes, if all women were required to provide to all men every single thing they wanted, that would probably suck for women, and vice versa if women "got everything they want". Fortunately, this being the real world and not a third-rate sci-fi novel, nobody actually gets everything they want.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
That's what I'm trying to s... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2011 6:18 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Ellie: | Reply

That's what I'm trying to say: there are no sides. I used to be in the whole boys vs. girls thing when I was thirteen. Then I grew up.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (11 votes cast)
@LioraLiora: | Rep... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2011 3:58 PM | Posted by Scott Adams: | Reply

@Liora

Liora: | Reply

Up there a ways I remarked on the fact that you sandwiched rape between tweeting and cheating--I think that is worthy of some discussion.

--- I sandwiched them the same way the weather person sandwiches rain between the temperature and the wind speed. It doesn't imply that rain is the same thing as wind. -- Scott

I also challenged the notion that women's "natural instincts" cause us to engage more easily in socially sanctioned behaviors.

-- That's a worthy point of debate. The main point of the original post was to raise just that question. On my blog, I make an argument for positions that don't necessarily reflect my settled views of thing. The point is for the readers to wrestle with the ideas in the comments. They understand that. Taken out of context, the post appears to be an opinion piece, or some form of insane advocacy. -- Scott


And I remarked that "the media tells us that what Adams is saying is true, even as the media tells us it is wrong to say it is true."

--- I'm fairly certain the media doesn't tell anyone that my views are to be taken seriously. And the blog in particular isn't always my view. -- Scott

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
"On my blog, I make an argu... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2011 4:43 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"On my blog, I make an argument for positions that don't necessarily reflect my settled views of thing. The point is for the readers to wrestle with the ideas in the comments. They understand that. Taken out of context, the post appears to be an opinion piece, or some form of insane advocacy."

Hmmm, taken in the context of your blog it seems like an opinion piece (there's no actual evidence offered up, just opinion, so what else could it be?). It also seems more than a little bit like you were trolling for attention and now trying to distance yourself (and protect your identity/persona) by backpedaling. So you didn't get exactly the result you hoped for? Have you considered that the issue may actually be with what you wrote and not everyone else's understanding? And the reason why nobody is "debating" the evidence with you and only offering up their countering opinions is because that's the tone of conversation you set yourself when you made silly claims about biology that are based in ideology/cultural beliefs and not science?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
The point is for the rea... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2011 10:27 PM | Posted by philtrum: | Reply

The point is for the readers to wrestle with the ideas in the comments.

Then come up with some less hackneyed ideas for the reader to wrestle with. The "oh no poor menz" stuff has been done to death.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
Thanks for your reply. I do... (Below threshold)

July 4, 2011 10:53 PM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by Liora: | Reply

Thanks for your reply. I do understand that the sandwiching of the three examples was not intended to imply that they are functionally equivalent; however, I disagree that they can be categorized in sequence the way three relatively benign elements of the weather could be sequenced. Perhaps traffic violation, murder, and shoplifting would be more apt in terms of comparison: two examples of what might be considered lesser violations book-ending something quite heinous. Only, your initial examples are even more incongruous because tweeting and cheating are "crimes" that involve a willing accomplice and therefore could generally be considered victimless, whereas raping is something else entirely. (The concept of "victimhood" is a little complicated because of course there are the wives and others who trusted the men in question not to engage in these behaviors, but that can also be illustrated by the comparison: just as running a red light could be harmful to another driver and larceny isn't entirely victimless—and just as both involve violation of agreed-upon rules—neither is viewed in the same light as intentionally taking a life.) So, to clarify, my point was that raping a woman can not be neatly sandwiched between expressions of lust and/or infidelity.

Which also feeds into the second point, which is that there are women who are willingly engaging in these fantasies/infidelities with the men who are presumably behaving badly, thereby illustrating that women do, in fact, also behave badly. And, given the nature of the interactions/behaviors, they probably do so for similar reasons. Now, women may be socialized to dress up their sexual curiosity/prowess/perversion as a need for acceptance/attention/validation, but I would bet that the average male tweeter/cheater is just as desperate for all those things as the person on the receiving end of the tweet. If not more so. And while I generally eschew speculation about others’ psyches, it seems that the larger a person’s ego, the greater the need for that kind of external validation; hence, famous/powerful men behaving badly: large egos + lots of resources = “bad” behavior. (Not to mention the issue of publicity—it’s not actually that the behavior is so special, it’s that the men engaging in it are somehow considered special.)

And the issue of socialization is really what point #3 was all about. I didn’t mean that the media tells us to take you, in particular, seriously, but that the media tells us that men are filled with these instincts and that women are not (or shouldn’t be). A great deal of ink (and film and bandwidth) is devoted to satisfying “the male urge” —and, tragically, to teaching us how “opposite” the sexes are, which is probably the aspect of your post I object to most. (Toss-up with point #1.)

Incidentally, I disagree with TLP’s speculation about your inability to attract women/get laid/whatever. I have no idea what you look like, but you’re famous and you’re funny, both of which seem to be attractive qualities in a man.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Let's start a club, called ... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 2:47 AM | Posted, in reply to John's comment, by Francis: | Reply

Let's start a club, called "Self-aware (as in, inadequate,) and Proud!" It'll be fun-we can have t-shirts and stuff!

Haha... all jokes aside, I actually agree... Maybe it's because I'm still too young to really experience a lot of good times/rejection

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
... then I grew up into one... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 4:02 AM | Posted, in reply to Ellie's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

... then I grew up into one of those girls that has no identity and hates women and would stab a bitch in the back if she thought it would get her good male attention/relationship/married.


Yea I know girls like you. They pretend to be like one of the guys and hate women, they pretend to be more like men than other women, this is all from a total lack of identity (a problem for many females), a lack of ability to be alone, and a resultant chronic disturbing need for a man to fill the void. It's really a combination of uncomfortable, upsetting and annoying to be around these kinds of girls. The funny part is they think they are enlightened and better than the girls who DARE to criticize anything men do.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
Don't you know I posted tha... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 4:10 AM | Posted, in reply to Ellie's comment, by Scott Adams: | Reply

Don't you know I posted that contrived abuse-justifying woman-hating nonsense to STIR YOUR THOUGHTS? I don't really believe it honest no crosses!

As Linda Richman would say... "men want to rape by biology, but a female-dominated society blames them for that discuss amongst yourselves."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -6 (10 votes cast)
... then I grew up into ... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 7:14 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by philtrum: | Reply

... then I grew up into one of those girls that has no identity and hates women and would stab a bitch in the back if she thought it would get her good male attention/relationship/married.

Whoa. I didn't see anything like that in Ellie's comment at all. All I saw her saying was a) most women like and seek out sex too (even if not in EXACTLY the same way as men), and b) all men are not rapists.

There are many, many, many men who are capable of empathy, especially to the minimal point of not wanting to violate and traumatize other people. I hardly think acknowledging this makes one a woman-hater.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
and here I always thought s... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 12:05 PM | Posted by harpy: | Reply

and here I always thought society was a scheme for keeping women under control. it is only in a relatively few countries that women are allowed the miserable freedoms offered by western culture, and even then we constantly have to defend ourselves from men who feel they don't have enough power over us.

and really? "natural instincts of women"? have you never heard of Maenads? if you ever saw a woman in her true power, you'd pee down your leg.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
"Don't you know I posted th... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 12:36 PM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"Don't you know I posted that contrived abuse-justifying woman-hating nonsense to STIR YOUR THOUGHTS? I don't really believe it honest no crosses!"

Actions speak louder than words and someone who has been caught using a sockpuppet in an attempt to do image control has already shown that they're quite capable of dishonesty to try to protect their image. This claim just seems like more of the same.

When people are genuinely looking for thoughtful debate or to provoke thought in others, they write thoughtful posts (you presented no evidence remember, just an opinion, which is why the opinion is being attributed to you..after all, you presented it as your opinion...see how that works?). What it does seem like you were doing was making an emotional post in an attempt to generate emotional outrage to get yourself some attention. Then you got all "nobody will debate me on the evidence and everyone else is all emotional and irrational" when you actually presented no evidence.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
Mr Adams, it seems like you... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 1:04 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Mr Adams, it seems like you believe anyone who disagrees with you is emotional and irrational and you're just a really clever cat that is manipulating everyone else. Considering this, and that you're here trying to do image control, you might want to check out some of Alone's posts on narcissism on this blog.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (13 votes cast)
A good article of Theodore ... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 1:32 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

A good article of Theodore Dalrymple on "you are being lied to, by yourself":

http://www.city-journal.org/html/8_1_oh_to_be.html

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Wow, a lot of people commen... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 6:20 PM | Posted by Pastabagel: | Reply

Wow, a lot of people commenting on this thread really don't know how to read. I am stunned that anyone could read Adams's pegs and holes post and conclude from it that he though rape was a natural male instinct. It's provocative, hyperbolic, designed to spur some debate, get an argument going.

I wrote a defense of Scott here: http://partialobjects.com/2011/07/why-scott-adams-is-fed-up-with-jezebel-salon-and-me-and-you/

But, in that post I disagree with Scott's central idea that society represses men more than women. I think society represses everyone, and in the footnote to my post I explain it in more detail.

But seriously people, if you take literally every generalization or hyperbole that someone writes, then you should step away from the keyboard. You'd have to be both stupid and crazy to think Scott meant all that stuff literally.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
Eh, not everyone's taking A... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 7:28 PM | Posted, in reply to Pastabagel's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Eh, not everyone's taking Adams seriously but it doesn't follow that anyone who does is stupid or crazy just because you happen to be into him. He just seems rather pathetic to me - what between the affirmations, trolling, sockpuppetry (not that I don't enjoy a sockpuppet who is actually clever and providing some lulz and not just doing image control) and that weird unreality-based "libertarian" mistaking of being contrarian with being a critical thinker (like Bill Maher). When put "libertarian" in quotes because it's now used to describe a newer brand of tea party libertarian of the neocon kind that seems to have taken over from the sex, drugs and rock and roll Burning Man kind of libertarian of the days of yore.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
"But, in that post I disagr... (Below threshold)

July 6, 2011 7:45 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"But, in that post I disagree with Scott's central idea that society represses men more than women. I think society represses everyone."

No offense meant pastabagel but you seem to be taking Adams seriously if you bothered disagreeing with what you call "his central idea". Not taking Adams seriously means I don't take his ideas seriously either (or the ideas he presented that he claims he doesn't believe). It's not like Adams is particularly known for his reality-based thinking!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Abuse-justifying?R... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2011 1:10 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Scott Adams: | Reply

Abuse-justifying?

Reading comprehension: fail

See what smart people say: http://partialobjects.com/2011/07/why-scott-adams-is-fed-up-with-jezebel-salon-and-me-and-you/

Reading be good!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Dude, "abuse justifying" wa... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2011 2:04 AM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Dude, "abuse justifying" was just me quoting your own words back to you. You need to lighten up on the idea that everyone else can't read when you don't even recognize your own silly words! What was that about other people and imagination....seems you're waging an imaginary war and putting words in everyone else's mouth (quite literally in this case).

July 6, 2011 4:10 AM | Posted, in reply to Ellie's comment, by Scott Adams: | Reply

Don't you know I posted that contrived abuse-justifying woman-hating nonsense to STIR YOUR THOUGHTS? I don't really believe it honest no crosses!

As Linda Richman would say... "men want to rape by biology, but a female-dominated society blames them for that discuss amongst yourselves."
Vote up

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Thanks for the lulz, clearl... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2011 2:05 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Thanks for the lulz, clearly you're bi-winning!!!!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
That's not a real quote. Th... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2011 9:47 AM | Posted by Scott Adams: | Reply

That's not a real quote. That's someone's witty contrived quote written as a rhetorical device.

The reading comprehension clue you missed is that it's written to sound ridiculous. No one would write an abuse-justifying post just to stir people's thoughts.

See what I'm dealing with here?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (13 votes cast)
Ah, the old "I'm so smart a... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2011 10:43 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Ah, the old "I'm so smart and you just don't understand my genius because you're stupid" ploy. Seriously, you don't even recognize your own words and you're busy projecting what you want to believe everyone thinks - it's quite interesting to watch you continually reject reality in favor of your imaginary universe where you're some misunderstood super genius. While people calling you stupid may get your ego in an uproar and other people's not so flattering opinions of you may lead you to resort to sockpuppetry to try to control what people think of you, lots of us out here in the real world aren't so desperate and wrapped up in projecting a false persona that we need validation from strangers to shore up our self esteem. Seriously, while I suspect your desperate denial about how your words and actions don't align with the image you're trying to convince everyone is you will get in the way of actually having an insight, you really should check out some of TLPs writings.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
This is a good example of w... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2011 11:27 AM | Posted by Scott Adams: | Reply

This is a good example of why I used a sock puppet. If an anonymous stranger pointed out that you confused a fake quote with a real one, you'd look at the facts, probably check the source.

When I point out the same factual error under my own name, you interpret the situation as me being in some sort of psychiatric crisis.

If I started a rumor with your customers/coworkers/neighbors that you're a member of the KKK, would you let it ride so you didn't seem so desperate for the approval of others?

I hope your comments are meant as a joke. I'd hate to think this is your best thinking.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
If she said those things, A... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2011 1:21 PM | Posted, in reply to philtrum's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

If she said those things, AWESOME, because I never made those arguments.

It seemed like she just wanted to beat up on a female who was threatening her. None of her points made any sense at all and had nothing to do with my statements prior.

Usually when women focus on other women to attack, while also defending men, it's typically because they are a gaping void of identity and can't exist without a man to define them. They are not even real people and only exist in the context of their relationship. They HATE women because they find them threatening to their existence. I imagine that a militant christian would say something similar to a muslim you are threatening my entire existence with your muhammad talk and your free and easy manner of not respecting my religious myths.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
It's entirely possible he m... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2011 1:25 PM | Posted, in reply to Pastabagel's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

It's entirely possible he meant it. I don't care if he meant it either way you slice it, but there are many many men out there who think this way - "I can't control my sexual urges; it's women's fault". We had men SUPPORTING HIM in this very frigging thread.

It sounds like you are trying to redirect attention/debate onto yourself and your ideas (and your own blog entry) by making an outlandish statement, e.g. "anyone who took Adam's statement as literal is a stupid crazy idiot".

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
Dude, get over your grandio... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2011 3:24 PM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Dude, get over your grandiosity already and stop projecting what you want to be true onto others continually. Yes, it was understood that you made up that "fake quote" but that doesn't change the fact (with evidence supplied) that you wrote it and then assumed that I did simply because you want to believe that's what I (or anyone who critiques you or your ideas) said and think! The point is that you're shadow boxing with an enemy in your own head and projecting what you want to believe people think onto them because it suits your purposes. You go on a lot about how nobody knows your genius intentions and shouldn't read your words and actions for what they are because you have secret genius intentions that means nobody should take your words or actions for what they are. Yet, oddly, you never stop assuming you have special insight into what others think, feel and believe even when they haven't told you. Pretty much everything you assume and accuse others of doing, you're doing yourself (do you understand what projection is?) I get that you think you're a puppetmaster with super special hypnotic powers (and that you "train" your blog readers to think a certain way - which seems kind of like you're trying to set yourself up as a guru of a cult) but you're not magic, no matter how much magical thinking you do.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
I know it's really importan... (Below threshold)

July 7, 2011 3:47 PM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I know it's really important to you that you're "Scott Adams famous guy" but I could care less (and wouldn't have even recognized your name if the link to Dilbert hadn't been made) so you're getting the same treatment from me that anyone else who was behaving like you would. You're not getting any special treatment and I don't think you're extra special because you've got mainstream fame - apparently you're very impressed by fame but to me people are just people, though if you court fame whinging about the cost of being famous seems rather silly to me). Granted, it's quite probable that the mainstream press (and perhaps TLP and pastabagel) are mainly interested because you're known in the mainstream (or only even got wind of your blog for this reason) and not because your ideas are particularly interesting or exciting, which is something I have already pointed out.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
"See what I'm dealing with ... (Below threshold)

July 8, 2011 5:25 AM | Posted, in reply to Scott Adams's comment, by Idc: | Reply

"See what I'm dealing with here?"

Sir, you sort of brought it on yourself...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
I recently came across your... (Below threshold)

July 8, 2011 6:06 AM | Posted by Breast augmentation orange county: | Reply

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. You helped me a lot indeed and reading this your entry I have found many new and useful information and rest of the entries are also very useful.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Thanks Anon, I'm glad I cam... (Below threshold)

July 8, 2011 11:31 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by vv111y: | Reply

Thanks Anon, I'm glad I came upon your comment. I'm going to check out Dalrymple further.

If it wasn't for the different writing styles I would guess that TLP and Dalrymple are the same person - both psychs, both worked in justice system, similar messages.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"It's obvious the writer fi... (Below threshold)

July 10, 2011 1:33 PM | Posted by someone: | Reply

"It's obvious the writer finds Adams's blog offensive, and I will accept that she wants the world to be a better place, but no where does she make even an attempt to articulate why she finds it offensive."

Feminists are too stupid and disconnected from reality to articulate anything. Ad hominems, straw men, red herrings and heelarious sarcasm are the full extent of their intellectual arsenal.

I've read Adams' post twice now and I find it really incoherent. It doesn't appear to have any point, it isn't saying anything. It's just words.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
"Feminists are too stupid a... (Below threshold)

July 10, 2011 2:00 PM | Posted, in reply to someone's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"Feminists are too stupid and disconnected from reality to articulate anything. Ad hominems, straw men, red herrings and heelarious sarcasm are the full extent of their intellectual arsenal."

And,you sir, are apparently too blind to see the inherent irony of making this statement in the manner you have. Ah, prejudice, it so often says more about the person promoting it than the object of their prejudice.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
I was stating a simple fact... (Below threshold)

July 10, 2011 2:38 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by someone: | Reply

I was stating a simple fact, and you're just trying to draw attention away from it.

Also, "prejudice" does not mean anything. It is not a word. Not anymore.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
Oh snap if someone gets inv... (Below threshold)

July 12, 2011 5:55 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Oh snap if someone gets involved the trolling will reach critical mass and the internetz will implode. This is a fact of physics as pertaining to the interweb.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"but then what the hell are... (Below threshold)

July 14, 2011 1:47 PM | Posted by andy: | Reply

"but then what the hell are people doing reading Jezebel and Salon?"

Same thing the people reading thelastpsychiatrist.com are doing. Avoiding work while convincing themselves that they are smart.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Hi, I'm the *real* Scott Ad... (Below threshold)

July 14, 2011 5:10 PM | Posted by Scott Adams: | Reply

Hi, I'm the *real* Scott Adams, and I just want to say that I'm offended by people pretending to be me!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
A knowledge, a growth, a go... (Below threshold)

July 29, 2011 10:50 PM | Posted by cheap chi flat iron: | Reply

A knowledge, a growth, a good article can make a person to enhance the taste, thank you for sharing, I will carefully read the product to make themselves rich!
cheap chi flat iron

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
"Evolutionarily logical"...... (Below threshold)

August 9, 2011 4:37 PM | Posted by nf4ever: | Reply

"Evolutionarily logical"... LOL.

So, um, things that exist in nature that don't fit the average 15-year-old virgin-in-the-basement Evo Psycho are "evolutionarily illogical" now.

How do you even begin refuting something like this? Why even engage with someone whose misunderstanding of evolution is so profound.

My best try: evolution doesn't have to be "logical", bro.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Meant to say "worldview of ... (Below threshold)

August 9, 2011 4:53 PM | Posted, in reply to res ipsa's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Meant to say "worldview of the average 15-year-old" up there.

Has TLP written yet on how ironic it is that men, who finally have what they always claimed they wanted (i.e., easy access to sex, as today's women take a more active, less monogamous approach to getting laid), are crying foul?

It's almost enough to think that maybe what men *actually* want is serial monogamy with women while they alone are allowed to go screw anything that moves. All while women as a whole remain pure and loyal. Hm, how does that work logistically?? One wonders...) What they *really* miss is the double-standard.

All of this moaning about female sexual empowerment just screams UNRESOLVED MOMMY ISSUES. VIRGIN/WHORE COMPLEX. Narcissism is just one of many symptoms with these two things at their root, I'd wager. But I'm no psychologist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
I thought that the writer o... (Below threshold)

September 2, 2011 2:39 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I thought that the writer of this blog had misread Scott Adams. TLP thinks it shows that he is a self-pitying nerd. I, on the other hand, was certain that Adams was staging a gigantic tease against a certain variety of feminist, and other ideologues, who tend to assume that Nature is alway on their side, and that civilization is the enemy. Of course, it's perfectly true; it's also true that the point has been made before many times over in the course of human history. Camille Paglia was making it for us not long ago, but she's dropped out of sight. Adams chose to make the point in a particularly incendiary way, but then, he's a cartoonist, which means he enjoys annoying people.

By a Lady from Canada

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Very happy to see your arti... (Below threshold)

November 14, 2011 2:18 AM | Posted by hermes bags: | Reply

Very happy to see your article, I am very much to like and agree with your point of view. Thank you for sharing. linmei/comment201111

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I notice that a significant... (Below threshold)

November 19, 2011 11:53 PM | Posted by Jim: | Reply

I notice that a significant amount of your article is devoted to what he's thinking rather than what he's saying. The small remainder of it is well written.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yo, Women-Are-Not-Fruit-On-... (Below threshold)

January 9, 2012 1:01 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Yo, Women-Are-Not-Fruit-On-A-Tree Anonymous,

Thanks for the input and the perspective.

Presumably, neither one of us has a very good idea of homo sapiens sapiens' "natural" environment and resulting enculturation. (Though our species has proven itself to be capable of enough behavioral plasticity that I'm unsure as to why anyone would care . . .)

That said, a fair amount of research has been conducted on other primates' reproductive strategies and said strategies' efficacy. The evidence so far, as far as I know, suggests that all male primate reproductive strategies tend to be about equal in efficacy. So, um, you could be a "beta male" and get it wet, yo.

Also this idea that "alpha males" succeeded and "beta males" had no kids? Is also a bit weird because, in other primate societies, pecking order changes all the goddamn time.

And the idea of women not being "fruit on a tree" because other men will step in? A vagina is more like a wolf-trap angler fish for your sperm. Secretive, aggressive, alluring, and generally fatal. Try reading up on intravaginal sperm competition, for starters. It's the best!

Cheers.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I've long suspected this. U... (Below threshold)

January 9, 2012 1:07 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I've long suspected this. Unsure as to why so many people downvoted you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The biotruthing on this sit... (Below threshold)

September 29, 2012 5:04 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

The biotruthing on this site is hilariously disgusting. i cannot believe how many people here are admitting to keeping rape impulses in check, Jesus Christ!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
cave men? You mean hunter g... (Below threshold)

March 11, 2013 3:05 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

cave men? You mean hunter gatherers. Young male hunter gatherers would have had their first sexual experiences at an extremely young age. Children of hunter gatherer tribes like the !Kung build separate mock villages near the adult village and pretend to be adults, with mock hunting and mock marriage and mock (but considered completely real by western standards) sex.

Forgiving the fact that young males would have had FAR more sexual experiences with young girls by the time they were old enough for ritual into manhood, they wouldn't have to wait long before their first kills and their eventual trial marriage with a neighboring tribesman's daughter which would have been completely arranged by both parents.

You're forgetting (as many people do) that this whole macho man 'alpha' bullshit makes no sense in actual tribal life. Hunting is a team sport, and there is no I in team, being the biggest, fastest, angriest, a-social asshole in the village isn't going to get you a harem of passive females where you resemble some Lion in the jungle. Human beings are more complex, they have memories, and it's difficult for a single human to gather enough food for himself (or raise himself--humans are virtually helpless for much of their long childhood compared with animals) The so-called 'alpha male' would be less tolerated in a small tribe and either exiled or killed for thinking with his dick. Humans want the best for their kids, they don't want to wed their girls off to jerks, and the girls have no real say in the matter. Just as now, it is whatever is best for the tribe that mattered then and will always matter.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
You know, you're right abou... (Below threshold)

October 22, 2013 11:35 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

You know, you're right about Jezebel not explaining, but that's...kind of the point. Jezebel as a website is not there to convince people, the idea is that readers already have a background of understanding social/political/gender/academic/whatever issues from a feminist viewpoint, and Jezebel is a community to air those views with other people who are already informed and agree with your way of thinking, so you can argue over the nuances.

The writer of the Scott Adams piece, in virtue of writing for her Jezebel audience, didn't need to go into why Scott Adams thinking x or y is wrong, because we've all already read some feminist literature/online rambling feminism 101 blog post/wikipedia which explains why. Going over it would be time-wasting for a lot of people who regularly read the site. Like a physics lecturer going over and over why F=G(m1m2/r^2) every single class even though everyone in the class already knows why, by virtue of the fact that they're in the class. As with Jez, it should be like "as you know F=G(m1m2/r^2) / People who argue that gender differences are biological are dumbasses, no duh, let's move onto something else".

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"[speaking about hunter gat... (Below threshold)

December 14, 2013 9:47 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anon: | Reply

"[speaking about hunter gatherer tribes] At root war is nothing more than a reproductive strategy for males."
I could not facepalm enough at this so I had to comment. Sure they were risking their lives to rape, not to fight for limited resources needed for survival. Are you forgetting that in hunter gatherer tribes there were more women than men due to greater rate of male deaths [hunting and fighting for limited resources is not safe FYI] ? Thus SURVIVING men had more chances to reproduce (and don't forget that through history there was twice as many women who reproduced than there were men). You feminists keep on ignoring reality and making you imaginary versions where you are the victim.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I would actually go a step ... (Below threshold)

December 18, 2013 4:48 PM | Posted, in reply to philtrum's comment, by Ryan: | Reply

I would actually go a step further than this. Adams wishes society would allow him to these things, because in his view, if society did, then he would be doing them. However, he fails to recognize that there's nothing stopping him! So why isn't he going out and raping and sleeping with lots of women then?

The shame and guilt are part of the equation but fall under the broader concept of Adams not wanting to be responsible for the consequqnces of his actions. In other words, he wants to be able to sleep with lots of women without going to prison or feeling any guilt or shame or deal with drama from women who want to commit, etc. He fails to acknowledge that he decided not to sleep with all of these women because he doesn't want to accept the consequences that come a long with doing so. This is not some circumstance of face, but a choice he made. This is the case whether he acknowledges it or not.

The other question this raises is whether he even wants to sleep with all of these women, which I would argue he doesn't. I would even make the assertion that at its root, this post has nothing to do with women. As stated above, if Adams REALLY wanted to sleep with tons of women, he would done so, consequences be damned. So what's going on here. I think that what Adams is really upset about is the fact that society( at least in his opinion) seems to value men who sleep with lots of women, rather than somebody--like him--who is successful in his own right but not in that way. In other words, he wants societal recognition. So why didn't he make the argument that society should endow more approval on happily married cartoonists? Shame. He has been fed so many messages that he is deficient because HE DOESN'T WANT to sleep with lots of women that he doesn't want to even admit to himself that this is the case.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)

Post a Comment


Live Comment Preview

September 16, 2014 00:52 AM | Posted by Anonymous: