One thing about Adams's claims about how society treats women with preference: he doesn't have to do all that and he even acknowledges it. First off, what he's talking about is seduction (although that's putting a more romantic/erotic spin on it than what it deserves). The only way he knows how to seduce a woman seems to be impressing her with his money... which might be the seat of his misogyny.

But anywho, I work in a restaurant, everyone I know works in a restaurant. I'm not convinced Scott Adams has eaten in a restaurant given his descriptions.

I expect the server to take my date’s order first.

That's... odd. A server will generally take the order of the person who speaks up first, then try to go clockwise (or counter-clockwise) through the party. Or she/he will look for visual clues such as who has their menu closed. Now their could be all sorts of regional and class-based variables to this... but this seems pretty off.

I expect the server to deliver her meal first.

Huh? In a lot of restaurants the goal is to get the food out to the table as quickly as possible. Which is why employees other than the server will deliver the food, in which case that person will have no idea who got what. And then there are a lot of variables to who gets what first ranging from which hand is the server's dominate hand, to which plate he/she happens to glance at first, to just how the server's memory is for the order.

I expect to pay the check.

...Why? I mean, I know why. To Scott Adams women are machines where you put in money and out pops sex. But he doesn't have to do this. Couples can go dutch. The person who makes the most money can pay. Sometimes one person could pay and sometimes the other person. This is a system that he doesn't have to follow, but he does because he can't think of any other way to get a woman to sleep with him.

I expect to be the designated driver

Again, why? Generally whoever has the best car or a full tank of gas is the driver.

And on the way out, I will hold the door for her, then open the door to the car.

Who holds car doors open any more? That's like the most Nice Guy thing possible. And you don't have to hold the door open. If she's the first person to reach the door, she can hold it open for you.

If the woman has additional preferences in terms of temperature, beverages, and whatnot, the man generally complies

Well... I mean she is a guest at your house. You could always just go to her house and then your preferences for "temperature, beverages, and whatnot" would have to be complied to. That's called being a good host.

If I fall in love and want to propose, I am expected to do so on my knees, to set the tone for the rest of the marriage.

Or... you know... you could do it any of the literally thousands of other ways that people do these types of things.

But here's the thing. A lot of this is very familiar. This is how my parents operate, and they were born in the 1940s. Although guess what? Even they aren't this particularly rigid. The older they got, the more these gender roles broke down.

Scott Adams is 58. His conception of women and femininity and masculinity and gender roles is stuck in an era long gone. And he's too arrogant to see that the world passed him by a long time ago. He's just an old school sexist who uses his own pomposity to try to cover it up.

I have a feeling that if Adams tried to consider same-sex dating, his head would probably explode.

Great post! On the first point though I do notice that I (woman) tend to get asked what I want to eat before any guys generally. But that usually means if the table has a mix of people one of the women get asked and then the server goes around the table in the direction of their choosing. However I may just be blinded by confirmation bias and only notice when myself or one of the other girls is picked first.

“MOVE SOMEWHERE BETTER, YOU IDIOT!”

Move somewhere else is actually a longstanding libertarian talking point. It's patently false the moment you look at it: moving is expensive, even if you move to a location with a stronger economy there is no guarantee of getting a better job, most people have local commitments and concerns and so aren't free to simply move, it damages the already damaged economy of the place people are leaving, it floods the place people are moving to with a new population it isn't ready to support... and on and on and on.

Also, you just know those same people don't want people coming from Somalia and criticize those who try.

Move somewhere better, unless you're Syrian.

People who talk like this have formed their notions of social mobility from watching Star Trek, where it takes nothing more to move and get a new job than the desire to do so. Real life, as you note, is a wee bit more complicated.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Saying that men are naturally predisposed to rape and to respond murderously to rejection is not an argument for making those things permissible and legal. It's an argument for locking men up until they can prove they can function in civilized society.

And really, any reasonable man should be offended by assertions like that. I'm perfectly capable of not raping anyone without external assistance, thank you very much.

Then they get mad when women don't trust any guys. "Can't you tell that I'm the good guy and all those other guys are /fill in the blank/ (jerks, rapists, murders, jocks, etc.)

Your experience with the Dilbert cartoon is very similar to my own, Adam. Since the late 90's I have used a Google Reader category (and then Feedly when GR went away) to stay current with all my favorite comics. As I recall, for the first few years my feed was mostly newspaper comics supplemented by one or two web-only comics.

Over time I gradually got into more web comics and at the same time got bored or fed up with the print comics, so it cycled out, and today I almost exclusively read web comics. I only read print comics through "The Comics Curmudgeon" blog as a medium.

Anyway, Dilbert was one of the early casualties of this process. At the time I worked at IBM, so Dilbert seemed very relevant to me (and LOTS of other coworkers, judging by the office doors in my hallway). But as time went on, I started to realize that the jokes were one note repeats on a small number of themes that Scott Adams brought up over and over. Meanwhile Dogbert, who seemed like a funny and relatable cynic who understood my issues, gradually shifted in my view into a smug, misanthropic asshole who just gets off on other people's suffering. It was funny at first. Didn't withstand the test of time.

It was a difficult decision to cut Dilbert out of my daily routine, probably sometime in the very early 2000's. But after just a month I didn't miss it, so much that when I went back and read a comic here and there, I was already think "Can't believe this strip used to be funny."

By the time I found out that Scott Adams was a weird, new agey evolution denier, I didn't really bat an eye. I just felt vindicated. And when his idiotic misogynist phase kicked in, I was practically expecting it.

i never felt close to Dilbert, but took it in stride as perfectly justifiable mockery of mindless [middle] management. your description of Dogbert's devolution is how i felt about 90% of Family Guy's characters after fairly enjoying about half a season of it; and the revelations of Scott Adams's beliefs/character are reminiscent of how i and several friends went from admiring Dave Sim's steady upgrades (post-volume-one) to the world of Cerebus until, the more his side-notes went outside the scope of one or two interesting political topics, the more his bitterness (compounded by the pretense that his narrative about a failed relationship gave him flawless and universal insight into gender roles) curdled his art and tainted his philosophy.

-Never- look into the personal opinions of writers, artists, or actors whose work you enjoy. It never turns out well.

I dunno, every now and then you discover that Gandalf and Picard are cheerful friends in real life.

Hermione Granger is also more awesome in real life than the character she plays, and so is Katniss Everdeen. And of course, Barney Stinson's real life counterpart (How I Met Your Mother) is much funnier and more charming than his fictional self.

And I hear they play pinocle with Ebenezer Scrooge and Captain Ahab too.

They even play chess! I saw it in a movie!

The twist here is that there's no investigation necessary. He's flinging his views far and wide for all to see. No looking into it required.

I've read 40+ Orson Scott Card books, I'm glad that I looked deeper into his personal opinions and became soured on him and disenchanted with most of his books. It is natural to outgrow some authors, it is a good idea to read widely and explore, which will include finding some dead ends.

There do exist authors that don't suffer or may even become better when you know their personal viewpoints, in my opinion Phillip K. Dick, Ursula K. LeGuin, and staying in the realm of comics, Bill Watterson of Calvin & Hobbes.

Fortunately, it is not always the case. For example, I am a big fan of the work of China Miéville, and it appears that he is close to my own political and ethical views.
For the Scott Adams thing, it is annoying, I had a gift for the Winter Solstice celebration including his work. I'll try to find something else.

Wait, what did Roger Waters do besides call Israel an Apartheid state (correctly)?

Or the "Orsen Scott Card" rule.

Or the "Vince Vaughn" rule.

I'm more a fan of Burke Breathed's "Bloom County" myself

Did you ever read The Trouble with Dilbert: How Corporate Culture Gets the Last Laugh by Norman Solomon?

Although fairly strident and polemical, it does make some good points.

>I assume the makers of the video intend me to watch it and conclude “Sexism is out of control! Women can’t even walk the streets unmolested! Something must be done!”

>Here’s my actual reaction: “MOVE SOMEWHERE BETTER, YOU IDIOT!”

In other words, don't try to change things, to make them better. Just give up and leave.

Yes, I admit that I tend to be pessimistically hopeless at times, but I don't recommend it as a strategy to fight social injustice.

This sort of pessimistic hopelessness pervades his comic.

Dear Scott: When you find that mythical utopia with no sexism or harassment, let us know where it is! I’m sure plenty of people would be thrilled to move there.

In particular, the sexists and harassers. I mean, a place free of sexism and harassment would be one where their 1st Amendment rights are being infringed upon and they just won’t stand for that.

Adams has also endorsed creationist arguments more than once.

I wonder, then, if it was bone of contention the intro for the Dilbert cartoon began with creatures crawling from the oceans and evolving into the various characters.

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.

Most people not beholden to their status as arbiter of all things good and wholesome would have stopped and asked themselves if maybe their premise was a touch off after making a claim like this. As Adam points out, the implications alone should give one pause with just a modicum of empiricism.

Keep in mind that the "natural instincts of men" here mean "raping" and "getting murderously violent when sexually frustrated".

"Men like hugging better than they like killing....." Not as far as I can tell. It has always amazed me how so many males like being aholes of various levels. For myself I'm perfectly capable of killing, but don't and without any hugs, rather than killing I go look for a different source of hugs! As much as I enjoyed many Dilbert comics the author is a dimwit.

Well to quote Scott Addam's anonymous sockpuppet account he created to defend himself and his work, “It’s fair to say you disagree with Adams. But you can’t rule out the hypothesis that you’re too dumb to understand what he’s saying. And he’s a certified genius.”

Certified by whom? Himself, of course. Just like Ayn Rand and Gene Ray.

Let me guess - he's got a Mensa card?

I read his blog until one day he thought it was a good idea to help poor people in 'third world' countries by turning villages into reality TV shows. People that were more well off could compete by helping these people and whoever did the best job would win. It was then that I realized he was so arrogant and privileged and couldn't even see it in the least. I commented that maybe these people wouldn't want their lives turned into a freak show for TV and my comment was deleted. So his blog was deleted from my feed. That was before he got into the stupidity of his ideas about women.

Ugh, I hadn't even heard of that one. Once you lift up a rock, all kinds of ugly stuff crawls out...

I think it's that he doesn't realize that many of his thought experiments involve real people. To him it's all an intellectual exercise and he has no idea what it's like to have any of these problems he thinks he can 'fix'.

Scott Adams is no Walt Kelly.

Aye. He lacks the artistic skill, humor, & insight of Bill Watterson, Berke Breathed, & other great cartoon strip creators.

We have seen the problem and it is us... wait, no... its that guy, definitely

"Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it."

I think that MRA Dilbert is right on the money. Because this statement sounds like something that a Dilbert villain would say.

The "Man Who Knows One Thing" is a more generalized observance of the Salem Hypothesis, and is somewhat related to Crank Magnetism.

Just because you are smart or an expert in something does not make you immune to professing stupid or ignorant beliefs. With the Salem Hypothesis, there seems to be a strong correlation between engineers who are also

1) Global warming deniers
2) 911 Truthers
3) Creationists

Engineers like to consider themselves experts on other professions. The dangerous thing about this is due to their highly technical field they posit some very strong arguments that are technically sound, backed by reason, evidence, and even experimentation....... even though they're still wrong. That makes their position very persuasive among those who are too busy, lazy or stupid to critically analyze their arguments.

I don't know what it is about engineers that makes them vocal critics of other fields. It's like a dentist telling you how to fix your car. But like Scott Adams and Ayn Rand, they think that since they are smart and rational, that their opinions are always right, and they are immune to the faults in reasoning that everyone else has, and they can see through the BS and know the truth when the rest of society is lied to (which appeals to their ego).

I don't know what it is about engineers that makes them vocal critics of
other fields. It's like a dentist telling you how to fix your car.

Or Ben Carson talking about anything other than brain surgery.

It doesn't help that engineers tend to come from middle-class backgrounds, and are most often straight white males. So if they notice things like systemic bias or mass income inequality at all, they'll assume that there are simple solutions for it. You get a lot of Mr. I've Never Missed a Meal in My Life going "They should just..."

Actual conversation I once had: "They're protesting unemployment and unfair labour practices." "Those people should just get a job!"

The same guy, apparently, opined that Mr. ShifterCat was faking mental illness to get those sweet, sweet disability payments. Luckily for him, I was nowhere nearby when he said this.

I don't know what it is about engineers that makes them vocal critics of
other fields.
I have an inkling that it has to do with mistaking efficiency and usefulness for truth. "Look, I built an impressive thing that is very good at what it's for. I must know a lot about things!" Engineers are typically people who are good at learning a lot about logical systems, locating problems, and solving them. Someone who's too stuck in that mindset is going to encounter difficulty when they try to operate in an unfamiliar systems, and completely lose their way when solutions aren't really the point. Many engineers would make terrible scientists for this reason, but because they often need to know a lot about science, some of them think they are great discoverers of Truth.
I remember one year someone brought an engineer to the philosophy students' union Christmas party. That...did not end well. I'm sure most engineers would never dream of interrupting a grad student explaining her thesis about cloning ethics to explain why the entire thing was a waste of time, but this one did. )-m

Ugh, I know what you mean about engineers. I'm surrounded by them at work and the number of times I've heard "I'm an engineer, so I know when..." usually in defense of avoiding cultural changes, denying global warming, being anti-vaccine or some other kind of nuttiness. It's gotten to the point where I don't trust these people on their actual specialties anymore.

LOL

I read recently about a phycicist who during a bout of unemployment had the idea of creating a consulting service for folks who think they can revolutionize physics.

The majority of her customers were indeed male engineers.

"He styles himself a profound thinker, a philosopher-cum-satirist dispensing his hard-earned wisdom to a world thirsty for it. However, the more we hear from him, the more obvious it is that his ambition far exceeds his intellectual reach. "

It has been my recent experience that the more people advertise themselves as "Great Thinkers" the more likely they are to be bat-crap crazy.

You didn't see his endorsement of Clinton?

My Endorsement for President of the United States

Posted June 5th, 2016 @ 10:11am in #Trump #clinton2016

I’ve decided to come off the sidelines and endorse a candidate for President of the United States.

I’ll start by reminding readers that my politics don’t align with any of the candidates. My interest in the race has been limited to Trump’s extraordinary persuasion skills. But lately Hillary Clinton has moved into the persuasion game – and away from boring facts and policies – with great success. Let’s talk about that.

This past week we saw Clinton pair the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear.

That is good persuasion if you can pull it off because fear is a strong motivator. It is also a sharp pivot from Clinton’s prior approach of talking about her mastery of policy details, her experience, and her gender. Trump took her so-called “woman card” and turned it into a liability. So Clinton wisely pivoted. Her new scare tactics are solid-gold persuasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if you see Clinton’s numbers versus Trump improve in June, at least temporarily, until Trump finds a counter-move.

The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an “apologist” on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).

If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. I too would feel that way if an actual Hitler came to power in this country. I would join the resistance and try to take out the Hitler-like leader. You should do the same. No one wants an actual President Hitler.

So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.

As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president. But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton.

My prediction remains that Trump will win in a landslide based on his superior persuasion skills. But don’t blame me for anything President Trump does in office because I endorse Clinton.

The rest of you are on your own. Good luck.

—

If you don’t like this endorsement, you might enjoy my book because it doesn’t endorse anyone.

What planet is this man from?

Maybe this planet.

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

That is terrifying