comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Today in Depressing

Scott Adams Addresses Men’s Rights Activism, Backhandedly Insults Everyone Everywhere


A few days ago, Scott Adams, creator of the long running comic strip Dilbert, asked the commenters on his blog for a topic to write about, and the overwhelming vote was for him to take up the cause of Men’s Rights Activism for a post.

I guess there are a lot of masculinists who also enjoy bland but occasionally funny cubicle farm humor? Never would have guessed. Well, let’s see how Adams handles the controversial topic:

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

Well, shit.

Adams has since taken down the post, but nothing ever actually gets taken off the internet, so you can read the whole thing here.

That’s essentially the gist of Adams’ argument: he agrees that yes, men are unfairly treated because our society has both not yet completely shed the notion of chivalry towards the fairer sex (“We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?”), so, okay, we can agree that the same hierarchy that pins women to the role of needing protection pins men to a unnecessary role of being the protector. He also cites a great deal of other things as examples of “oppression” that we wouldn’t necessarily agree with. But guess what? Ultimately, he so totally doesn’t agree with Mens Rights Activists!

He thinks they should just suck it up and deal with all those crazy oppressive bitches. Because bitches always gonna be crazy, dog. And it’s the MANLY MAN’s job to take oppression like a MAN and stop bitching about it. Like the bitches do. And in conclusion:

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us.

So, on behalf of women, the mentally handicapped, and, last but definitely not least, men everywhere, thaaaaaanks Scott Adams. Thanks for proposing that the proper response to institutional irrationality could ever be to ignore it. And thanks for implying that the desire for equal pay for equal work is as irrational as a child wanting candy. Oh wait, you had an explanation for that, too:

Women earn only 80 cents on the dollar, on average, compared to what men earn for the same jobs. My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.

If we want to get paid equally, we should just be aggressive about it! Once we do that (I mean it’s not like it became law in 1963), and only once we do that, you can take the “path of least resistance” to Justicetown. How noble of you.

UPDATE:

As if to dispel any doubt about his grasp of the situation, Adams responded in the comments of the Feministe post to let them know why he took the blog down (we were alerted by Kate Beaton):

That’s the reason the original blog was pulled down. All writing is designed for specific readers. This piece was designed for regular readers of The Scott Adams blog. That group has an unusually high reading comprehension level.

In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it. The same would be true if the topic were about gun ownership or a dozen other topics. As emotion increases, reading comprehension decreases. This would be true of anyone, but regular readers of the Dilbert blog are pretty far along the bell curve toward rational thought, and relatively immune to emotional distortion.

Could be a troll? For our personal sanity lets hope it is.

(via Feministe.)

TAGS: |


  • http://hoperoth.com/blog Hope

    Ugh. He annoys me quite frequently (he’s just so smarmy about his opinions), but he really crossed a line with this one.

  • Careyja1

    Because we should really be concerned with the personal opinions of the guy who created Dilbert. You people just aren’t satisfied unless you have a reason to be outraged. How about you sit down and relax; read a damned book or listen to your favorite cd without trying to troll the Internet for people you don’t agree with. What a complete waste of time caring about this or posting this at all.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks, Careyja1, for making me think it’s really time I do something with the youpeople.com domain I’ve been sitting on.

    I’ve always liked reading Scott’s essays. I *like* that he approaches ideas in a way that often makes me uncomfortable, or even angry. At least he makes me think. Usually. Sadly, this essay was all about *not* thinking.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve never met a woman executive who’s negotiated “aggressively”, who didn’t work 10x harder and have several higher degrees to her name than her surrounding male counterparts. And for this, she invariably gets labeled a “stone cold bitch”, or, sometimes, a “stone cold bitch with a great rack”. Surprise, she’s still not making as much money as the males with whom she has a title in common. And I’ve NEVER seen aggressive male-style negotiating work for a woman who wasn’t white.

    Sorry Scott, your little strategy doesn’t work so well. Back to the mancave for you!

  • Anonymous

    “Sit down and shut up, little girl, I’ll tell you what’s important”?

  • http://twitter.com/WanderinDreamr hbm

    Considering he made the post first and this is a just a reaction to it, and this IS a site about nerdy and girly things, I don’t thin counts as trolling at all.

  • http://tinypinkrobots.smackjeeves.com Rori

    So what does that make commenting on a post that no one should care about about a post that no one should care about? Heal thyself a little. Jeez.

  • Rimjo

    @leorising With all due respect, your sweeping comments about women are just as bad as Adams’ or you don’t know enough women executives.

  • Chuck

    Didn’t your response to Adams’ blog post prove his point?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ben-Lamb/100001205164959 Ben Lamb

    It’s an interesting question regarding equality and the aggressive negotiation of pay.

    As a hypothetical exercise, if you suppose that aggressive negotiation naturally and acceptably leads to higher pay, and you suppose also that men negotiate (on average) more aggressively, you potentially end up with a system which favours men, despite the fact that gender is not taken into account when making pay decisions.

    Is the system sexist? Should something be done about it. Could something be done about this without either giving women a balancing, but potentially unfair bias? Or without ignoring an employees ability to negotiate (again potentially unfair).

    I guess an analogy would be if one were to pay lumberjacks based on how much lumber they could haul. You would presumably find that men would be more highly paid at this work. Is this fair? Is there any way of doing it which is more fair?

    Is it fair that disabled people earn less than non-disabled people?

    I’m not sure at all! :-

  • Anonymous

    Is the process sexist? Ought to something be completed about it. Could something be completed about this without giving ladies a balancing, but potentially unfair bias? Or without ignoring an employees ability to negotiate.

    orlando villas

  • Anonymous

    W/r/t your analogy: the male and female lumberjacks are hauling the same amount of wood, and the female lumberjacks are being paid less. Sometimes the female lumberjacks are hauling more wood. You’re conflating physical ability with something totally different: business skills. I’ll stop this before it descends into my usual rant against biological determinism, evo psych, etc.

    So yes, the system is sexist. The real question is, in an unfair system, is it ethical to resort to “unfair” practices to right it?

  • Anonymous

    Sigh. Repeat after me, people: “The kyriarchy hurts everyone, including men.”

  • Clair

    Augh! I sort of liked Scott Adams and now thinking about him makes me almost nauseous. I’m pretty convinced that there is no way he could’ve possibly written that.

    In response to the bloggers statements about “We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants.” Uh no, we don’t. I don’t experience any prioritizing in being served at restaurants and my experience holding doors and seeing doors held doesn’t show any statistically significant gender bias at all. I’m not saying it’s like that everywhere, but that’s my life.

  • anon

    shut up you whiny man

  • Paul

    People read Dilbert?

  • NOOOO!!!

    OMG!!! The constantly offended are offended again!!! AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!

  • http://tinypinkrobots.smackjeeves.com Rori

    It’s not completely the same, but freelance creatives, esp. illustrators, face a similar problem in devaluing their work, regardless of gender. Some of this stems from a general cultural notion that it isn’t worth much because “my kid could do that” (no, your kid couldn’t), or it’s a hobby, etc. Some of it stems from the common act of people willing to take a pittance for what they do, which stems from 1. not ever being taught how to negotiate and 2. an idea that the most important thing is to get the gig, for whatever pay you can, nevermind how much it will cost you in overhead. There are probably a lot of other factors as well.

    I agree with teaching people how to negotiate, it not only helps out financially, but is a step in taking a proactive approach to your life. However, I can’t agree that is the ONLY factor in pay discrepancy. That just seems to fly in the face of reality, and when people use that as their go-to answer, it ignores so many other factors that need to be examined and changed.

  • http://twitter.com/shadowmaat Shadow of Ma’at

    For someone who has written comic strips for years Scott doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp on this “communication” thing. Not really sure it’s worth any outrage, though. What he said originally was kinda stupid and his attempts to clarify only made matters worse, but compared to some of the genuine misogynistic nutjobs out there this barely even registers. Maybe if he was a more important figure it might make a difference, but not by much. And he isn’t a big figure anyway. Has Dilbert even been trendy or relevant in years? I was kinda surprised to find it was still around… and still not very interesting, IMO. I’d rather hear more about BSG Precinct or whatever it’s called. ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ben-Lamb/100001205164959 Ben Lamb

    You seem to have misunderstood me. When I said that lumberjacks would be paid based on the amount of wood they hauled, I meant that lumberjacks would be paid based on the amount of wood that they hauled. I’m not sure how to say that any clearer.

    The implication was that men would be able to haul more wood (on average) than women.

    The point I was trying to highlight here is that if you pay people based on a quality which is found more in one sex than another (ie: physical strength, or (hypothetically) aggressive negotiation) then you can end up with a gender bias, without necessarily being biased by gender. (I understand that this sounds counter-intuitive, but I think it is true)

  • Gasanti1

    I would like to hear your opinion about why women are treated differently. Why can’t a man hit a woman that hits him first? Why should men hold the door for a woman? Why should a woman be served first in a restaurant? And lastly, why on a sinking ship should women and men go first?

  • Gasanti1

    I would like to hear your opinion about why women are treated differently. Why can’t a man hit a woman that hits him first? Why should men hold the door for a woman? Why should a woman be served first in a restaurant? And lastly, why on a sinking ship should women and men go first?

  • Kelly

    Few points:

    What is the purpose of using the word “bitch” in this segment instead of the word “woman”:
    “He thinks they should just suck it up and deal with all those crazy oppressive bitches. Because bitches always gonna be crazy, dog. And it’s the MANLY MAN’s job to take oppression like a MAN and stop bitching about it. Like the bitches do.” Just curious…

    This post states that Adams says the “proper response to institutional irrationality” is to “ignore it.” But what I got from it was not to ignore it, but to not do anything about it until it presents itself personally. said

    “And thanks for implying that the desire for equal pay for equal work is as irrational as a child wanting candy.” How is a child wanting candy irrational? Candy is good, children are simple and want good things. I want candy right now.

    Women getting treated equally is good. Everyone should want what they think is good. Is that irrational?

    I also find it interesting that you bring up Adam’s statement that men negotiate on the more risky side in relation to things such as salary, but leave out the statement about why that is so. Legally, an organization cannot change the conditions of compensation between men and women, that includes ability to negotiate wages. If women are more likely to take the safest option (which is take what is given, or not to be to aggressive in a manner to assume you will be more easily accepted) vs the riskier option of pushing to get the highest dollar but be labeled as over paid, or pushy, then of course, in a situation where the option to negotiate wage remains available for both, then women will show a lesser rate.

    Am I saying this is how it is? No. I’m saying this is how Adams sees it, and this is why (which is the part I mentioned was left out):

    “Men will argue that if you ask a sample group of young men and young women if they would be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve such power, men are far more likely to say yes. In my personal non-scientific polling, men are about ten times more likely than women to trade family time for the highest level of career success.”

    Regardless of if this is true or not, I personally think women are making the better choice, the same choice that I made. I get paid much less doing the same position vs the average, because in my specific situation I get to see my family more.

    Again, is this the way it is? I don’t know. But to leave out that Adams is suggesting women support family over making more money does not give fair representation. If you want to bash the guy for being chauvinistic, fine, go ahead, but I don’t think it is right to skew what he is really saying.

  • Couchpundit

    He isn’t any different than any of us internet jerks: has has an opinion. Don’t be mad at him because he doesn’t think like you or observe the same rules of political correctness.

    Celebrities, are people who spend money on branding an publicity to craft most of what they say or do to veil their true thoughts and emotions with a phony veneer of populist platitudes to ingratiate themselves as our artificial friends and role models.

    The truth is they’re people–and most likely they’re every bit as vapid, shallow, and narcissistic as we are.

    When you roast a celebrity for having an unpopular, misguided, or outright bigoted opinion, you’re really just disappointed that they aren’t truly any different than you, your neighbor, or the comment thread trolls–they’re human and we’re ugly as our crude imperfections show through.

    Even the hippest hipsters and the most socially responsible of us are self-centered bigoted jerks under our facades of altruism. We project our idealism onto them and glom onto their celebrity aura as if it were our salvation from our pettiness.

    We’re a self-loathing bunch with nothing better to do than to gossip about who said what and who is a rotten jerk. Our passive-aggressive bullying of celebrities contradicts our attempts to take the moral high ground as we stump for our egalitarian manifestos.

    So, here’s to Scott Adams–a guy who is mostly guilty of being human and honest. Don’t judge him to harshly for being just a regular person.

  • Jackbondnj16

    If you make 80 cents to a man’s dollar, HERE’S A GOOD IDEA.

    Instead of complaining about it and whining that you DESERVE more pay, how about taking action and making it perfectly clear that you can EARN more pay. Free Enterprise rewards those who take action and excel. You ruin it if you say your pay is ‘unfair’. Is it ‘unfair’ to pay a lazy hobo less than a first-class employee? After all, lazy hobos are being discriminated against, aren’t they? There’s a reason they’re being paid less, and the ONLY way they should be able to earn more is to get out there and SHOW that they really deserve more.

  • http://www.joe.to Joe

    dilbert was never funny, and helped perpetuate problems with corporate culture by trivializing them into little 3-panel jokes.

    his ridiculous and arrogant comments are exactly what i would have expected from him

  • Jolene

    Holy sounds like antifeminist comments from the Middle Ages, where “women, like children, are like inferior or unperfected men.” Thanks, Adams. I’m done with Dilbert. Step into the 21st century, and maybe, MAYBE I’ll reconsider.

  • Ms. Begotten

    First, I’d like to thank you for comparing women to lazy hoboes. I have to say, I truly haven’t heard that before. Well done!

    Second? While I am sure that there are MANY workplaces where good people are paid more, and shitty people paid less, I have yet to work at one.

    No wait–there was one.

    There are no words to describe the feeling of being cut off at the knees when one tries to negotiate for a raise like a grown up–bringing up legitimate list of documented accomplishments, positively assessing your worth/usefulness to the company, making a clear and concise statement of intent (WANT MOAR MONIEZ, but slightly more eloquent), and WTF ever other advice/technique one has read in countless articles or heard from mentors, etc.–only to find out that even if you outwork, outclass AND stand up for yourself in that razor-thin margin between “castrating bitch who acts like a man” and “sweet girl who’s good at her job but could never LEAD or anything,” you are STILL not getting the raise, or extra hours, or promotion.

    After the third or fourth (or fifth or sixth) time it’s you getting screwed and not the other guy, you can’t help but wonder if maybe it IS that you’re an XX not an XY… Or maybe they make it a little more obvious, like my boss telling my manager that he took me off the schedule until we get busier because “her husband has a job; she’ll be fine without a check for a few weeks.”

    And THIRD???<> Nah, fuck it. Mama always said don’t feed the trolls.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe I just took away from that post what I already thought, but the way I understood it, he was trying to say the opposite of some of what you wrote here; that the inequality presumed by Mens Righters isn’t comparable to global women inequality, or that there are more important things then not getting yer food first.

    Also, he’s not wrong about the reader’s reading readability thing. His blog’s comment pages are usually filled with people rationally discussing the pro’s and con’s of his ridiculous statements and ideas, and if they find something they disagree on, it’s usually more of a “Hmm, quite. Well, how about this [citation based/theory based/ fact based] thing.”

    Whereas the people seem to go for more of a “That is just wrong. It is ABSOLUTELY wrong. You just sit there, being wrong in your wrongness.”

    Not that there aren’t benefits to both approaches.

  • http://twitter.com/trdevlin2 Tom Devlni

    “My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.”

    Here is the error. The correct assertion is, “On average, women bear more children than men”.

  • http://www.joe.to Joe

    sorry, i don’t know any regular people who are this chauvinistic. if i did, i would tell them to shut the fuck up because they were acting like an asshole. that’s what regular people do.

  • Relax.

    “According to my readers…”, he starts, and then pandas to those who wrote the letters. He flags up a number of semi-reasonable points, often flagging up that ‘my readers’ and ‘men’ will argue against the womens points.

    At which point he calls the letter-writers a ‘bunch of pussies’. And he begins to say *why* women have whatever perks they have: “And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.”

    This isn’t a clarion call to the masses for apathy and giving up; it’s highlighting why the men are in the position they feel to be in: they haven’t done enough about it.

    If they cared enough, they’d fight for it. They’d chain themselves to railings and run out in front of the Queen’s horse and get stampeded. They’d burn their jockstraps and dangle free like nature intended. They’d start writing ‘men’ with yoghs (ȝ, looks like 3; basically a ‘y’) in some strange notion that it separates them from the hedgemony of the other sex. And then the women would probably take the path of least resistance too; not caring sufficiently about these masculinists.

    Seriously. Most of his article is intended in a tongue-in-cheek style, first bolstering those who would have him write about such a waste of time topic, and then smashing their hopes and dreams and comparing them unfavourably to the weakness of the opposite sex.

  • overlearnedandunderpaid

    A man can hit a woman after she hits him: they will both be charged with assault. There is no “assault on a female” charge. I’m a woman and I hold the door for everyone, it’s not at one-way street. In a fine dining environment, servers are trained to serve the women first. Does it really fucking matter to you? Again, I am a woman, and I could care less who’s plate is set down first.
    Your last question is poorly worded, and I’m not sure “women and children first” even applies today. How many fucking ships sink nowadays, anyways? LEARN EMPATHY, thanks.

  • http://profiles.google.com/krissie.p Krissie P

    But the problem is that they are not paying people for a quality if that same quality in a woman is seen as negative. If a man is aggressive that is often seen as positive and thus he gets higher pay, if a woman is aggressive this is seen as a negative and she often does not get higher pay. It becomes a no win situation if you are a woman. Plus that the whole concept of that aggressiveness any situation necessarily makes you a better worker is just stupid.

  • Anonymous

    “you people”

  • MERICA

    I like that we can keep debating about inequality of pay between men and women despite how much work they do instead of focusing on inequality of pay between a CEO and Management.

    One guy with a small chunk of the public ear makes a comment that can be extrapolated to make any point you want to incite people who make the debate look worse for their own side and in the end, affect no change.

    Hey! Lets talk about “Obama Care” while our education system gets worse because the new generation of stupid adults think it’s the teachers job to raise their kids.

  • Noratorious

    Sounds like a terribly failed attempt at irony. Which only makes me pity the poor fool I’ll simply call “Scotty Don’t.”

  • Storm

    You know why people are pissed off at this post by Adams? Because in all humor… there is a bit of truth and people do not want to face the truth. They are more than happy to try and live the happy lie. In the meantime… nothing gets fixed/changed to correct it. In 40 years of working side by side with women in various jobs and duties. Not one WOULD… not that they could not… they refused to do the same job as the men. for some reason.. they always thought they didn’t have to, were above it, or that the job description should not be something they were not to be held to. This is especially true of my Marine Corps days. Never seen more of a bunch of whinny people in my life as female Marines. Before I joined many, many,many years ago… I had a different outlook and thought if a woman wanted to serve.. they should be allowed to. THAT changed over the years because all I ever saw were a bunch of women… who SAID they wanted to be treated equally and paid the same… refused to do the same work.

    Barefoot, preggo, and in the kitchen is where they belong. Now… go make me a sammich.

  • Zilberfrid

    I find Scott Adams often takes a “devil’s advovate” approach to start a good discussion. That said, this is pushing it.

    Do take note however, that he basically wants the man’s right people to just shut it, and this approach may be more effective then a reasonable one that, for some obvious reason, these men just don’t get.

    I would also like to note that in my immediate surroundings, I have not experienced a bias against women, sooner one towards them. I do acknowledge that I work in IT, and there is clear value in a mixed team, and we get more applications from men then women. There also seems less room to argue, there is a fixed collective bargaining that most have to adhere to.

  • Couchpundit

    That’s my point. You would alienate that person from your life. Your friends are the people you choose because their opinions and lifestyle are most like yours. You probably do actually know people who are chauvinists, racists, bigots, and small-minded. You just don’t know them well-enough. Your real friends either adapt their worldview declarations to suit the group’s dynamics to be accepted if they don’t genuinely share your beliefs.

    On the internet, you type the words “shut fhe fuck up” but in real life, you probably wouldn’t because it’s impolite. Sure, the guy’s an asshole, but we generally don’t have the balls to call people out on it to their face. If you do, you’re the most awesome person ever.

  • Anonymous

    Nope, I understood you perfectly. You’re arguing that in business, they value one quality over another, and since men have that quality, then men will get ahead. Since it’s based on a possession of a certain quality and not on genitalia, it (may) not be sexist.

    This is disingenuous.

    The thing is, it wouldn’t matter what quality we’re discussing here – if women don’t (tend to) possess it, and men do, it’s valued in business and in Western culture overall. Shifting the attention (and the blame) onto the qualities themselves distracts from the larger context and allows people to say they are not sexist when engaging in sexist practices. The qualities that are valued are ultimately arbitrary, since it’s the possession of a penis that gets you into the club. (You know the saying, if men could give birth, abortions would be free and available everywhere.) Not to mention the fact that the qualities themselves are a result of cultural indoctrination, not biological destiny. To wit: in an equal society, hauling wood would be relegated to the strongest of both genders, at least until machines come into play. Businesses would be comprised of both men and women, since “feminine” values such as accommodation would be valued equally as “masculine” values such as aggression.

    The goalposts keep moving: women were kept out because they have a vagina, er, I mean a delicate constitution; now it’s because they’re not “aggressive” enough.

    This also hurts men as well; men who engage in occupations or display qualities seen as “feminine” by society are often denigrated (male nurses, male receptionists, effeminate gay men, etc, etc.) I’ll quote Melissa at Shakesville here: “Even the average straight, white, middle class American man exchanges privilege for severe limitations on his personal expression and emotional life—and he is encouraged never to examine that devastating trade-off too closely, lest the veneer on the alleged bargain prove thin enough through which to see.”

    So yeah, basically what Krissie P said, but in more words.

  • jay

    pretty sure this is just satire…ever read jonathon swift

  • Anonymous

    Couchpundit: You’re eliminating the segment of society who is aware that they are biased twits, but are actively educating themselves to become less so.

  • Smohan3245

    “I’ve never met a woman executive who’s negotiated “aggressively”, who didn’t work 10x harder and have several higher degrees to her name than her surrounding male counterparts.”

    Typical bullshit response with no proof to back it up.

  • Machomachoman

    If women aren’t being paid the same, it seems it is the women’s fault. Don’t accept less pay and don’t take the job. A business won’t go far without women employees. Sounds like the same bitterness when finding out that a same-sex co-worker earns more than you. Besides, women still earn more that their male counterparts in pornography and strip clubs. Just go with your strong suit!

  • Recodan

    DID NO-ONE GET THAT HE WAS TROLLING IN THE EXACT SAME GODDAMN WAY HE DID IN ALL OF HIS BOOKS?

    Come on, people – he’s published this same gag before.

  • Spike

    It is very often the case that two workers of the same sex, doing the same work, get different pay. One of them may have more experience, or one of them may have done better in salary negotiations, or some other reason. It is in the interest of the employer to pay the least they can for labor.

    The whole idea of equal work for equal pay fundamentally flawed, or at least misleading, as it leaves out many other variables, ex. experience.

    Paraphrasing what someone said above, it is entirely possible for a system that appears to be based on some independent variable to end up with a gender disparity. One example is experience. It sounds fair on the surface, but many women (and very few men) take time off to have and/or raise kids. Some may only take a short time then get back, others take a longer time. Hypothetical situation, Alice decides to take a few years off to raise her kids during what she fells is the critical time to be there for them. Fast forward 10 years and suddenly Alice is wondering why she makes 80% of what Bob makes, and she starts making a ruckus about equal pay for equal work. Never-mind that bob has more experience. IIRC the average hiatus taken for raising children was like 4 years; what were you making 4 years ago.

  • http://profiles.google.com/tellingdeeds Telling Deeds

    I thought about refuting your post, but couldn’t get past the “then pandas to those” as if there’s some sort of furry animal who just tells you what you want to hear.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=593718444 Kara McNair

    I don’t think Scott Adams is _advocating_ anything here and I’m surprised so many people think he is. I think this is more like the difference between prescriptive & descriptive grammar – he’s describing what he sees as the underlying motivation/causes for the state of things without suggesting in any way that it’s ‘fair’ or ‘appropriate’. It’s just what’s true (in his view).

    I also think that that’s what he means about this being written for his regular readers – they know that he values logic and considered analysis/explanation and does not see a problem with putting forth a reasoned argument explaining a situation without in any way endorsing it.

  • Anonymous

    Um, I’m not “mad at him” as a person. I think his opinions are hateful and wrong-headed. He put them out in a public forum, trading on his public following and recognition. I am disagreeing with him and I am disappointed in them in particular because I once thought he was funny and opposed authority in a creative and subversive way. Now I find he’s only opposed to authority that isn’t his.

    But I’m not “mad at him.” Please.

  • http://www.joe.to Joe

    in real life i have ended friendships and dating relationships over racist comments. if someone said something like that in real life, i definitely would respond. fortunately i live in in the bay area, where bigotry and sexism is the exception rather than the rule.

  • Vulpis

    Actually, this response shows that you have the *same* mental problem/blind spot that Mr. Adams expressed in the first place. It can be summed up in a simple question:
    “Why are you presuming that women are less capable than men in the first place?”

  • http://brightlywound.net Rachel

    In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it.

    No, I understand you perfectly. And I am disgusted by you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=563223409 Vic Horsham

    We get what you said, what we are saying is your analogy doesn’t fit.

    If the pay issue was a case of, as per your example, the lumberjacks who haul more wood get more pay, and male lumberjacks are on average able to haul more wood than female lumberjacks, then there;d be no equality differential to complain about. Because whilst the average might vary, there would be plenty of less-able male lumberjacks and more-able female lumberjacks on each side of the equation. The pay differential would exist, but would be small and would show significant variance.

    But that isn’t the case in reality. In reality, a man and a woman both doing the same job to the same skill level will not receive equal pay. In reality, a man who meets and exceeds business targets by being aggressive, commanding, confident and outspoken is praised for his strong qualities and rewarded for his behaviour. His underlings respect him more for his attitude and his superiors see him as a go-getter. A woman who attempts to meet and exceed business targets using the same aggressive behaviour gets labelled a cold-hearted bitch and a feminazi. Her underlings dislike her and make things difficult, and her superiors avoid favouring her.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=563223409 Vic Horsham

    You… are aware current rates of unemployment mean there are often 20+ applicants for every vacancy, right? You really think any company is going to be unable to find an employee to fill a role if women refuse to take them? And you really think anyone can afford to turn down a job – even a shitty, undervalued and underpaid one – with the cost of everything rising so fast compared to salary?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7CBZPYCTINBBJB22R6ZOZHVREA Joe Guy

    Too bad he’s right.

  • Couchpundit

    I like to think that the voice of comment reflects that of those of us who are trying. If it wasn’t clear, I like to consider myself part of that group in recovery.

    But I’m also not very idealist about it. The reality is that almost everyone is a bigot and fears what is strange or different. I chalk that up to human nature, albeit the less attractive nature.

    While I think Adams’ comments are rather surprisingly ignorant, I don’t think it’s any better to jump on the tar-n-feather bandwagon. That’s another ugly side of us that I think we can try to overcome as well.

  • Couchpundit

    Here in Texas, you’d be a very lonely fellow, indeed. Or, at least, someone with very high blood pressure popping Xanax like Tic-Tacs.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending ignorant people. I’m just saying that they need some grace when we attempt to widen their worldview. Most people who are sexist or racist come form bubbles where their ideas have been insulated from progressive values of gender, sexual, and racial equality. Most people rarely choose to be Archie Bunker-types but they are an exception.

    Having negative experiences with progressive people tend to re-inforce their bigotry in self-righteous indignation. I don’t think it’s a good idea to attack their religious beliefs or political orientation as the root cause of their hatred. This tactic undermines their responsibility as an individual and only serves to re-inforce the idea of a “liberal agenda.” It’s also reverse discrimination and it’s kind of hypocritical. Don’t repay hate with hate–it only serves to divide us between Red and Blue states (and that isn’t working out so well, is it?)

    Have hope for your ignorant fellow human beings. Ignorance is curable but stupidity is terminal.

  • Couchpundit

    Well said. Perhaps “mad” or “angry” are misappropriated terms.

    I like your choice of words–”disappointed” and “disagree.” Civility lives.

  • http://tinypinkrobots.smackjeeves.com Rori

    Why is it so hard to believe that other factors beside “just” factors like ability, experience and negotiating skills affect pay? Is it because we all want to live in a just world, where nobody gets a raw deal unless they secretly did it to themselves?

    I have no doubt that factors like experience and negotiating skills affect pay, but to assume that all employees are evaluated fairly and no cultural (and personality) bias comes into play is just absurd. If it’s just about the ladies and their habit of birthing babies, then why is there discrepancy along race lines as well as gender lines? (and why is there LESS discrepancy in government jobs?) Why are SPECIFICALLY young, single, professional women in urban settings at parity or slightly above their male coworkers while other groups lag behind? To say it has nothing to do with institutionalized prejudices and unaware management is just misspent hope. And it’s harmful: a broken system is no good to anyone, even the people it “benefits”.

  • C-man

    Sorry, no sympathy here. My Gov. is lumping me together with everyone and giving us all a pay cut regardless of gender. Hard work does not equal better pay in many circumstances.

  • JBH

    I think it’s worth pointing out that this sort of confusion and even outrage is what inevitably happens when a piece that is not written analytically is subjected to an analytical critique. When it comes to publishing for the masses, having no opinion is far better than presenting a poorly expressed opinion. My advice? If you want a coherent, well balanced, and reasonably objective breakdown of the current state of sexism in the workplace, read something by an expert in that field and, when presented with a piece like this instead, smile and take comfort in this simple phrase: “Well, that’s just a cartoonists opinion.” For you see, though we are all entitled to our opinions, some opinions are better than others (substitute more educated for better if you like, but I don’t feel the need).

  • Aafafa

    Susana Polo sounds much, much more annoying than Scott Adams.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think most women make a “choice” to get paid less. In every business setting there are lots of complex relationships that boil down to people with the most privilege being more receptive to people like them or likely to mimic/have the same type of goals as them. Men always hold this privilege over women from the get go unless it is an exceptionally well connected and well skilled woman- even then she usually evens out.

    Since women don’t have this insider knowledge and these benefits that have nothing to do with merit they can’t compete and do not get compensated fairly unless they change everything about themselves. Adams obviously has a hard time understanding how much privilege he has. He considers societally imprinted small courtesies to not just be the same as equal citizenship- but BETTER.

    “You’re really busting my balls here, sweetheart. 80% is better than 40% of what the REAL workers get paid when all you do is sit around and look pretty. Ya don’t even ask for it like Bubba over here did, we did some serious salary negotiating last night at DreamGirls! But that aint for you, huh? Got a problem with tassels or something? I opened the DOOR for ya’ didn’t I? Christ almighty! What do you want next?”

    I think trying to find any logic in his statement does a great disservice to your intellectual capacity. He feels kindness toward children and not letting the door hit the person behind him in the face are unnecessary and oppressive forces in his life. What a tool.

    The writing on this does not have to be flawless to establish he compares women to the mentally challenged ( anyone writing who thinks they need to clarify the plain meaning of their statement is NOT an insult would, with any sense, would just replace it if it was not meant as one) for expecting to be paid the same for the same work. To expect federal law to be upheld.

    You should just subscribe to Co-Dependants Monthly now. They’ve got a great column this month on how you can enable abusive guys at parties by backing up all the women hating comments men make by believing it’s true yourself and other women just aren’t “ladies” like you and don’t know what a “Real man” is.

  • Anonymous

    If it were satire he wouldn’t have taken it down. He could have very well updated it and said something to the tune of ” for those of you who didn’t notice…”. It’s obvious he put his foot in and and had no idea that it would not be appropriate to run down women in such a casual manner and expect nobody to notice. Although obviously a lot of people had no idea he was doing anything wrong- which makes me feel a little sad.

  • Anonymous

    Women have always been paid less then men. Though they are hired for the same job there is an employer feeling of charity for giving them the position because they “have to”. So with that existing what kind of success do you think a woman is going to have ASKING for a raise? Try to think of an example of a great female worker in any point in your life. Did you think she was “special” for being good at her job? Do you notice any major performance differences between a male and female cashier/waiter/gas station attendant. Do you feel like you’re getting better service at the gas station when as most all they have to do is give you a pump receipt, some lotto tickets or tobacco products? It is a damaging societal expectation that has only held on tighter as years of federal action fall short to stop it.

  • Anonymous

    That is a weak-ass answer. Try not to hold different motivations towards me for saying weak than you would a man. I have no interest in insulting your masculinity- just your ability to process information.

    Equal means equal. There is no law saying a new engineer needs to be paid as much as a senior engineer because they were hired for “the same job”. In your argument you mention different people doing different jobs being unfairly paid the same regardless of skill.

    Nobody brought that up. Effectively your argument is based on nothing. Unless you feel inherently women are less productive or capable as men. In which case your argument is based on asshattery.

  • Anonymous

    You troll womens entertainment websites to disagree with federal law granting women equal pay? THAT is a great example of fail. That’s like walking into Big 5 or some other sporting goods store and saying ” Where the hell are all the video games?!”

  • Anonymous

    Yeah- everyone takes a heaping spoonful of cognitive dissonance with their breakfast every morning. They WANT to believe everything is based on merit when it is a twisted labyrinth of oppression and privilege where everyone uses theirs to get along. However men have always had more then women. To argue that women are not oppressed by men is mental masturbation. It’s sensation wrought form self inflicted reassurance- not from an actual desired reality.

    The typical asshole response to dismiss oppression of women is ” women use their advantages too!”.

    All societal advantages towards women are considered manners, situational or optional. ” You don’t get treated as a fellow adult human…but when I want to have sex with you I might give you a free over priced drink! Or even open the door and complete low skill level repairs on your car or pluming!”

    Yeah thats the same as getting equal pay.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah- everyone takes a heaping spoonful of cognitive dissonance with their breakfast every morning. They WANT to believe everything is based on merit when it is a twisted labyrinth of oppression and privilege where everyone uses theirs to get along. However men have always had more then women. To argue that women are not oppressed by men is mental masturbation. It’s sensation wrought form self inflicted reassurance- not from an actual desired reality.

    The typical asshole response to dismiss oppression of women is ” women use their advantages too!”.

    All societal advantages towards women are considered manners, situational or optional. ” You don’t get treated as a fellow adult human…but when I want to have sex with you I might give you a free over priced drink! Or even open the door and complete low skill level repairs on your car or pluming!”

    Yeah thats the same as getting equal pay.

  • http://www.joe.to Joe

    the issue to me wasn’t his poor analysis of workplace inequality. it was his arrogance and stupidity.

  • http://profiles.google.com/scottgrunewald scott grunewald

    And the king neckbeard has spoken.

  • Anonymous

    @Joe, I’m sorry but you most likely DO know people like with opinions you likely oppose but with that attitude you telegraph a strong, childish “don’t disagree with me” vibe so they leave you in the dark.

  • gumboot

    This is probably a lie.

  • Anonymous

    No proof but my own experience, which is admittedly dated. I claimed nothing other than that.

  • Anonymous

    It is an opinion, based on my experience, which is admittedly dated. Sorry you don’t like it, but it doesn’t make me a liar.

  • Anonymous

    The latter is probably true. My experience working as a secretary and observing these dynamics is a dozen years in the past, true.

  • http://www.joe.to Joe

    i think it’s childish to be afraid to confront bigotry when you see it. and if someone i know has to keep their pre-civil-rights era beliefs hidden when they are around me, i see that as a good thing.

  • EnderSword

    So…
    Scott Adams writes that it’s not worth arguing because people will respond to it irrationally an emotionally…

    So you thought the best response was writing an article based on irrationality and emotions to ….contradict this?

  • Ninevehuk

    Nope. In fact leorising’s anecdote has been shown to be typical. See this research reported in the Guardian – the very act of asking for higher pay is seen as aggressive and negative in women: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/21/gender.pay?INTCMP=SRCH

    “Their study found that men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women’s reluctance was based on an accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalise women who asked for more. The perception was that women who asked for more were “less nice”.

    “What we found across all the studies is that men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not,” Bowles said. “They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate.”"

  • Ninevehuk

    Your experience is in fact backed up by the research – if you haven’t see this, I think you’ll find it interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/21/gender.pay?INTCMP=SRCH

  • Hanna

    Scott Adams has been known to write in a Devil’s Advocate manner and it’s true that if you take quite a bit of the writings from his blog out of the context of the blog they could be very misleading. Scott can also write in a manner that is “coldly scientific” and in that respect has a point about the readers of his blog being tempered to understanding where he’s coming from (when taking a position like this article that sparked all the Controversy above)
    Scott points out that most people cannot separate their emotional reaction when Rationalizing a topic and this entire article / many of the ensuing comments illustrates that well.

  • http://www.joe.to Joe

    sorry i don’t buy it. i know stupid misogynistic bullshit when i see it, and his expressed opinion is anything but scientific. it’s not that “i don’t get it” – he’s just an asshole.

  • Hanna

    @joe
    Do you read Scott Adams’ blog?

  • Anonymous

    Oh, and Ninevehuk was kind enough to provide proof, see the link below. Thank you for playing!

  • http://tinypinkrobots.smackjeeves.com Rori

    I read the post in question, it’s basically a rundown of what other people say, then several paragraphs of cliché snark. Scientific? No. Rational? No. Funny? I don’t think so, but I think his defenders would have a better time arguing it was a bumbled attempt at satire or humor than the tragically misunderstood work of a genius.

    Who knows, maybe it’s a cynical attempt at attention or maybe Adams is just bored and wants to troll it up.

  • Typhoonandrew

    Why put an argument such as this into the internet? It is not a new perspective, is bound to incite supporters and also antagonise others, and adds nothing to the wider argument of compensation or understanding of the issue.

    To my perspective either he was just being casual with his language, or really feels this way and poorly articulated his thoughts – either way he owns his statement and should take direct ownership of the affect it has. If he was being casual and didn’t mean it *that* way then a retraction would be simple. If it was poorly articulated then he has ample opportunity to clarify clearly, but to my reading the clarification is actually more confusing than the initial statement.

    I don’t understand at all the overall point he was trying to make.

  • claude le monde

    “women make less money” ≠ “C-man was laid off”. there is no need to compare the two and then decide who wins the sympathy. it is ridiculous to do so.

  • claude le monde

    another correction includes “scientific studies done by men have shown that women who are more aggressive regarding asking for raises and promotions are perceived as ‘cold hearted’ and consequently shunned by employees. given that there is, then, no beneficial way for women to attain raises at the same rate as men, should we not then address the system?

    example:
    men who are passive about raises: seen as neutral: average job status
    men who are aggressive about raises: seen as positive: + job status
    women who are passive about raises: seen as neutral (or even negative; “wimps”): average job status (or less)
    women who are aggressive about raises: seen as negative (“bitches”): – job status

    therefore it would seem that the system which does not offer equal strategy rewards to women is flawed; the reason it is flawed is that male perceptions of women are biased. SO FIX THAT, rather than tell the people whom the system is disservicing to shut up and get over it.

  • claude le monde

    pandas to THAT

  • claude le monde

    Typing has become difficult, what with all of these emotions “LITERALLY” causing this temporary sort of HALLUCINOGENIC ILLITERATE DREAM where words become numbers become babies grasping for candy! Only the slimmest recesses of my rational masculine mind, feebly pumping chemicals and scientific ideas around my FEELING-DRUNK LADYBRAIN, are helping me to type at all. “Literally,” you guys. I LITERALLY feel so many feelingy feelings that I can no longer understand or comprehend the very material which itself CAUSED the feelings (Note to self: this implies a time travel/wormhole–investigate when you are no longer an estrogen-soaked emotional imbecile). I…can’t–..it..asdfahhsd,fmnaad.fma!!!!!!!

  • claude le monde

    Yeah, but the problem is that he’s saying, “Hey guys, women have it rough–and we can’t understand why they kick up such a fuss, but unless your dick’s gonna suck itself later, you should just shut up, eat the dinner she made, and then watch whatever you want until she puts the kids to bed. It’s just easier dealing with women that way.”

    I mean, I know I am just menstruating my feelings all over the place here, but what we’d sort of rather have half the population think is “Gee, women DON’T have fair dibs. If we only made 80 cents, we’d kick up a RUCKUS. (You already heard me whining about how women are ahead in school FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY EVER and how horrible that is, right?) So maybe it’d be cool to cultivate adult relationships with women and talk to them like…like….LIKE MEN, OKAY? LIKE FULL HUMAN BEINGS (MEN).”

  • claude le monde

    Devil’s Advocacy: Promoting the opposite of the popular opinion in order to spark discussion or discern truth.

    What Scott Did: Being an asshole because jokes are funny when you don’t understand something, am I right guys? Now who’s gonna put the new jug on the water dispeser cos THAT SHIT IS HEAVY! (Call a man.)

    Please study the difference between the two, as you may find it useful.

  • Pere

    I’m reminded of the brilliant poem by John M Ford:

    “You people have no inkling of the facts.
    You people just don’t see the situation.
    You people sit alone and grind an ax.
    You people start and bring your own damn nation.
    You people sleep with partners made of straw.
    You people’d unconvert old Johnny Knox.
    You people sturmed the drang off Godwin’s Law.
    You people, get your hands out of your socks.
    You people, by the merest act of saying,
    “You people,” spin the prop atop your beanie;
    “You people” is your one-string banjo playing,
    “You people” goes da capo senza fine.
    Here sits a church, the browser is its steeple:
    Open the tab, and see the typing people.”

  • Hanna

    quite honestly most of these comments are still very much so illustrating the point(s) scott adams was and is trying to make .. this might provide some much needed insight: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/im_a_what/

  • http://twitter.com/ramy_d Ramy Daghstani

    “I just did a little test to see if I knew what pajama bottoms I was wearing without looking. I failed.”
    for me this, was the giveaway and it kind of bums me out no one caught on and got all emotional about it. wah wah.

  • SAM

    A woman’s work is never done! That’s why they don’t get paid as much =D

    *hides*

  • Senor Chang

    Woman executives, I work with MANY.

    This:
    “she invariably gets labeled a “stone cold bitch”, or, sometimes, a “stone cold bitch with a great rack”

    Is the part that’s a bunch of bullshit.

    That is NOT a reflection of men or corporate America, but a reflection of YOU and THE COMPANY YOU WORK FOR.

  • http://twitter.com/evie Evie

    Every comment from various men that I expected to see in this comments section when I clicked the article title has pretty much happened. It’s like everyone read Derailing for Dummies 101 and decided to follow it by the book rather than use it as a guide of what to avoid.

    I guess I am angry woman who should just calm the hell down though and stop taking this stuff so seriously!

  • http://twitter.com/JBod Justin

    “Who you calling ‘you people’?”

    “Who are YOU calling ‘you people’?!”

    “huh?”

  • http://twitter.com/JBod Justin

    I’m a recruiter and I’m working with a woman now who feels the need to, apologetically, remind me that she can be hard on people. Believe me when I say her male counter parts make no such apologies. She doesn’t need to apologize…

    Being labeled a hard bitch is a very much a part of corporate America.

  • http://twitter.com/Akheloios Akheloios

    Huzza, best comment so far.

    We’ll finally have a fair world when you take a random sampling of jobs and find a roughly 50:50 split between sexes, with women earning the same fair wage, and more importantly, when no-one is complaining loudly that the women only got there through preferential treatment. People losing privilige is not victimisation, no matter how much they might complain about it, I feel ashamed of some of the more rabid members of my gender at times (I’m a Bi male pref white male). They don’t see that the system the gives them an advantage over women is taking far more rights away from them than the few priviliges they gain from it.

  • Bruke

    I want to preface this by saying that I’m a convicted sex offender. I spent 12 years in prison and about two years in therapy. My perspective is probably different from that of most of the other people that have posted.

    Most of my therapy dealt with the concept of “victim empathy”. Until I started therapy, I never gave much thought to the feelings and thoughts of women. Even now, I won’t make any claims to understand women – but I do understand now that women are people and that their feelings are valid.

    After reading this article, I immediately thought of three women that I know.

    One is an older woman, nearing her sixties. She once held a supervisor position in her company but stepped down because of the stress of the position. Now younger men with less knowledge and experience earn more than her, and have become her superiors (in rank, if not in ability). This would seem to support the theory that male willingness to be “aggressive” leads to higher status and higher pay.

    Another woman that I know was an administrative assistant for a British executive in Hong Kong. Despite the fact that she did the vast majority of the work – it wouldn’t be unfair to say that she carried him – he was paid the equivalent of roughly $7000 per month to her mere $1900. While it’s not an example from the USA, I think it’s relavant because it was a British-owned company and thus of similar style to US companies. This would seem to support the claims of women that they sometimes work just as hard (or even harder) than a man yet don’t get a fair wage.

    The third woman that comes to my mind owns a small business (in partnership with her husband) and she handles the office work while he handles the manual labor of the business. They seem to share the profits and the work equally. This seems to indicate that fairness is possible, if there is respect and trust.

    What I take away from this article, based upon my own experiences, is that not all women are the same in what they want. There are those women that like chivalry – they want a man to be their protector and they are quite happy to have a lower wage if it means less stress and less confrontation. Other women are less interested in chivalry and would really like to have equality – but the social system is patriarchal and they are fighting an uphill battle. It seems to me that if a woman is to have equality, it will be with a small company – or their own company.

    One of my favorite quotes is, “The world as it is now, ought not to be; the world as it ought to be never will be – and the cause of this is man.” Sad, but true. I don’t have any answers for you women, but I wish you good luck in finding equality.

  • Asreal

    What do you expect? You’ve got two sides to this and neither side will see the other’s point of view.

    I personally think that the author of this article had a bit of a feminist axe to grind being honest, as Scott Adam’s comments do have a certain logic if observed neutrally.

    The women will naturally rail against my saying this, whilst the men will rail back, perhaps coming out with some real sexism and making the women feel as though they were right all along…

    There are folks dying in whatever natural or man-made disasters are occuring at the moment, and while these views shouldn’t be ignored, they certainly pale when compared to issues that really matter.

  • DSB

    Dilbert is still being published? It vanished out of newspapers years ago. No wonder he’s bitter . . .

  • http://amidstdancers.blogspot.com/ Shard Aerliss

    “What I take away from this article, based upon my own experiences, is that not all women are the same in what they want. There are those women that like chivalry – they want a man to be their protector and they are quite happy to have a lower wage if it means less stress and less confrontation. Other women are less interested in chivalry and would really like to have equality – but the social system is patriarchal and they are fighting an uphill battle. It seems to me that if a woman is to have equality, it will be with a small company – or their own company.”

    I think this here is the problem. Well no, that’s not the problem, the problem is that people do not understand that we, every single human being, is different to the one standing next to them. All of us want and need different things. The group can no longer speak for the individual because the individual is being allowed to be so utterly different.

    Unfortunately, the world hasn’t even caught up to the idea that we’re all people, yet alone that we’re all DIFFERENT people.

    Good insight.

  • What

    I think this argument is going to be over a lot quicker than it’s been starting. I see a lot more women in my industry and just the sheer numbers will change the dynamic. Its just the old misconceptions being phased out as people retire. Scott Adams is on the old side of this.

    Frankly all I care is that people arent dicking off in higher level positions, male or female. Sure, there has been some women being promoted more because of their gender as a way to create more equality, but there are plenty more craptastic male managers at this point so that argument is moot. And stone cold hard bitches is a tough pill for guys cause many have mommy issues. I just laugh, I think it’s great. I’ll take a hard ass competant women any day.

    And stereotypes are funny. Scott Adams has always been funny because of his play on stereotypes, including gender stereotypes.

    Lighten up. Like your wallets.

  • Anonymous

    I once visited Scott Adams’ website and read a commentary about David Copperfield being accused of rape. Adams made a comment saying that there is no way it could be true, because David Copperfield is rich and famous, and can get any chick he wants, and doesn’t “need” to rape anyone.

    Not that it really matters, but I hate knowing that the creator of Dilbert is a douche.

  • BruceGee

    It sounds to me as if Ben is simply serving up a lovely example of circular logic.

    Why are women paid less than men? Perhaps because they are less aggressive.

    How do we know that women are less aggressive than men? Because they are paid less.

  • Hanna

    @ galmoughraby
    yeah.. that’s not at all what scott adams said- he said he thought it was “unlikely that the alleged crime actually happened”

    http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/10/david-cop-a-fee.html

    but your misrepresentation via embellished paraphrasing once again proves the very thing that scott adams himself emphasized when explaining his writings requiring Context.
    you (or anyone) dipping in to scott adams blog to find morsels to feed the witch hunt is very Fox News / TMZ / etc and quite honestly nothing more than that.

  • Hanna

    @ galmoughraby
    yeah.. that’s not at all what scott adams said- he said he thought it was “unlikely that the alleged crime actually happened”

    http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/10/david-cop-a-fee.html

    but your misrepresentation via embellished paraphrasing once again proves the very thing that scott adams himself emphasized when explaining his writings requiring Context.
    you (or anyone) dipping in to scott adams blog to find morsels to feed the witch hunt is very Fox News / TMZ / etc and quite honestly nothing more than that.

  • http://tinypinkrobots.smackjeeves.com Rori

    AHAHAHA! Any possible outcome was totes planned by me guys! Get it! I am awesome!

    Yeah, I’m feeling pretty good about not giving this guy my patronage, which I know he loves, because that’s what he wanted, because he never liked me in the first place! Nyah!

    Thanks for that :D

  • Anonymous

    Well, I should probably wait till you’re done menstruating to respond, but my penis/brain is swinging away on this keyboard, regardless.

    Here goes; you’re right! It would be better to have mature, gently trimmed, and cultivated relationship with women. But people don’t have a habit of altruistically uprooting their beliefs and changing their behaviour. And especially not Men’s Activists, to whom the piece was addressed.

    It’s from an economist’s perspective; people are ruled by incentives, over the long term, and it’s more interesting to know what kind of incentives are useful, which aren’t, and yes, people are more likely to do what is easier. It’s not that it’s easier dealing with women that way, it’s easier dealing with the world that way; you don’t have time to think about and create fully-formed opinions on every subject.

    Mr. Adams notes on his rebuttal to everybody elses rebuttal to his initial thing that he isn’t one for believing that people can be influenced by exposure to better arguments, but different ones like the one he put up at least make things interesting.

    (p.s. there’s a pretty good section on women-pay-education dealy in Super-Freakonomics. It’s not the most unbiased source, but it points out that only 1.5% of CEO’s are women, while 50% of peeps’ graduating from post-graduate schools are women, and then goes through various possible reasons why holding relevant qualifications didn’t translate into upper-executive level positions, or equal pay. They also work through some of the reasons this might be. SOME of them might make you angry, but they are almost all well justified.)

  • Anonymous

    My experience includes 20 years of secretarial work, at levels from receptionist to executive assistant, from small companies to international banking corporations, in the Upper Midwest and on the West Coast. I have been retired with a disability now for 12 years. While it’s possible that the wide range of my observations no longer applies, I very much doubt it. If you work in a company where this is not the case, I’m happy for you.

  • http://twitter.com/jjfoley Jeff Foley

    The number of labelasses, binarians, and masturdebators in the comments are absolutely hilarious.

    You all have fallen hook, line, and sinker for exactly what Scott has been trying to do. It’s unfortunate for Scott that people who miss the humor are attributing a lot of that post to Scott’s personal beliefs. Maybe it’s not unfortunate, as those are the kind of people that Scott generally doesn’t want to associate with.

    Those who read Scott’s blog regularly can hear him saying, “Dance, monkeys, dance!” Ah, well.

  • flamingt

    I have adored Dilbert comics for YEARS. As a female in a male dominated IT heir achy, I could related to the “Fist of Death”. But I didn’t get my panties in a bunch “dealing” with the absurdity of what society expected from men and women, I just did what I needed to do to obtain financial security for myself and family. It’s interesting to me…almost 20 years later, that perhaps Scott may have lost his on view on his comic strip. Those feminist (I count myself as one) speakers above are outraged and blogging to release the emotions that women have held back for years. Men don’t emote…because they don’t allow themselves to. It’s scary for them, they might lose control, AND that causes fear. Fear can only attract anger, tyranny, and loss of control…which sounds contradictory here, but that’s what has happened. Remember humor? We all have to get a grip on ourselves and really look at all comics as the reality that the cartoonist sees. So what? Scott, keep your humor up, let us feminists yell at you, but maybe you need to put on a fluffy bathrobe and bunny slippers to remember, that we all need to laugh. If we didn’t, this world would be one sucky place.

  • Chicken

    That last incredibly disrespectful and unnecessary paragraph is what keeps people from being willing to consider your perspective. Not that you care; I’m sure you just enjoy banging your drum.

  • Blake

    Let’s look at the marysue website the same way many here (including marysue itself) looked at the Scott Adams blog entry in question: without Context

    I’ll assume -from glancing around and reading a few things -that this site and it’s readers are concerned with womens interest and an emphasis on “geek” culture ..For Women.

    I then note that the iconic mascot girl at the top of every page -in all of her various outfits -is featuring ‘Dat Ass and generally designed in a manner that would very much so please any frat boy / misogynist / objectifier of women.

    Theoretically I could base an entire article -say on Wanting It Both Ways dot com -pointing out the absurdity of the fact that a site with a “feminist” theme / following has also made the effort to choose a T & A Mascot.

  • Cassandra

    I wish that there was more modding going on in these comments. I’ve seen these kinds of comments a billion times over and this site can’t move on to discuss more meaningful things if we have to battle with ignorance at every post. IF this site is for WOMEN, then we shouldn’t have to wade through the same old same old snarky mansplaining.

  • Cassandra

    Even if the mascot was posed in a different manner she would still have T&A because she’s a woman. Women have T&A. It’s a fact of life, and you can’t say her blog post is incorrect because of the fact the site mascot is rousing your passions.

  • Blake

    @Cassandra
    you missed the point.
    I said that I could misrepresent themarysue site in a similar manner to how Scott Adams was misrepresented by themarysue.

  • Cassandra

    Ohhh, I apologise! But I still don’t see how Scott Adams opinions could be so misconstrued.

  • Anonymous

    OMG!! The constantly lying cowards are being constantly lying cowards again!!! AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Chicken is an excellent name for you – being both an intellectual and moral coward.

  • Anonymous

    Jackbondnj16 translated: mansplain, lie, mansplain, obviously stupid logical fallacy, mansplain, lie, lie, lie, cowardice, lie, mansplain, bullshit.

    *yawn*

  • Anonymous

    Translation: No, I don’t have any women willing to spend any time with me, how could you tell?

  • Anonymous

    LOL completely idiotic gibberish. What freaking planet do you live on?

  • Anonymous

    And you wonder why no women want anything to do with you.

  • Anonymous

    It’s because, deep down, boys like this are cowards. They KNOW they would not be able to compete on a truly level playing field. But, anxious masculinity complexes will never allow them to publically admit that. So, instead, they manufacture fairy tales of meritocracy to justify, dismiss, erase and ignore the fact that, they have undeserved privileges over all other people. If they admit it, they can’t pretend to be so superior.

    The funniest part is, when they are treated they way they treat everyone else, they immediately cry fowl and raise hell. But it’s okay when they do it, because . . . uh . . . . they have white penises. . . that are TOTALLY NOT SMALL!

  • Anonymous

    Translation: I have absolutely no ability to care about anything but white men

  • anonyman

    Doesn’t seem like very many people read what Adams actually said; they just chose random words and phrases, and reacted to their uncomfortable juxtaposition. He foresaw that, of course, but nobody read his qualifier, either. Or they read it, but didn’t care — the temptation to bash him as anti-feminist was too great. I suggest a re-reading, with this in mind: Adams is a VERY clever fellow, and his entire post was (a) tongue-in-cheek, and (b) intended as a jibe at men. As he pointed out in his response, the readers that follow him got it. But then, we are not agenda driven.

  • Boredlizzie

    Thank you for your incredible enlightenment. It is so brave of you to come here anonymously and post your precious thoughts on a blog for nerdy women. Carry you wayward social justice warrior, we’ll still be lol lol-ing at you when you are done :)

  • Hanna

    @Boredlizzie
    why so defensive?
    why would you be “lol-ing” and at what?
    ‘anonyman’ is pointing out things that should be crucial to the debate here -although it’s feeling more like a smear-campaign than anything else.
    so @Boredlizzie: are you here to discuss or be dismissive without substance?

  • http://www.thechildhealthsite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1 Edcedc8

    “So, on behalf of women, the mentally handicapped, and, last but definitely not least, men everywhere, thaaaaaanks Scott Adams. Thanks for proposing that the proper response to institutional irrationality could ever be to ignore it.”
    yeah, because screaming in bitchy histrionics like some cliche social activist chicken with its head cut off because a woman gets served first is much better.

  • http://www.thechildhealthsite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1 Edcedc8

    so, you’re for censoring opinions?

  • claude le monde

    right, because injustice served to, and prejudice held against, more than half of the population, much of which culminates in violence, is not an issue that “really matter(s).”

    we get it, men. we don’t really matter to you. we get it.

  • claude le monde

    “don’t worry guys, Scott is rilly rilly smart! i think he is funny and i think i am smart so he must also be smart, like me. yay men! he is SO SMART that you missed the part where he said “just kidding!” and everyone knows if you say “just kidding!” then that means that whatever you say after that DOESN’T MATTER and nobody can get upset. that’s like a LAW. so just LIGHTEN UP you guys! i am smart like Scott and i am “not kidding” when i say that i understood his writings REAL GOOD and i am NOT UPSET! he is ONLY KIDDING!

    i hope that helped”

  • claude le monde

    Anonyman provided a rehash of things that were already posted in the original blog. Like many followers, his entire “opinion” is just a rewording of what Scott Adams tried to defend himself with. There is no new idea in anything Anonyman wrote.

    Anonyman has not brought anything new to the table. Boredizzle was correct to make fun of him.

    Please read his post again and familiarize yourself with this technique. It may help you in the future.

  • claude le monde

    if you’re in a restaurant that’s nice enough to use etiquette* (setting a woman’s plate down first), then everyone should also know that nobody eats until everyone’s served. so it’s not even like she’s sitting there just GORGING HERSELF on her spring mix salad like a fucking bitch while you shiver from malnutrition having just pulled other men from burning cars all day. i mean, eat a roll from the bread basket if your blood sugar is that low, jesus

    *archaic human social customs that are sometimes preferential to women DUE TO HISTORICAL MEN THINKING WOMEN WERE TOO WEAK/DUMB TO DO IT THEMSELVES

  • claude le monde

    everyone who uses this argument has actually READ satire written by Jonathan Swift, right? that’s the prereq for typing that, right? Internet Law? anyone?

  • claude le monde

    “You have all fallen hook, line, and sinker,” Jeff Foley proclaimed loudly as he strode into the blog. “I have come to laugh on behalf of my Master, and to use his own made-up words to mock you!” Foley turned, his cloak sweeping the floor, and stared at the crowd.

    “I am his emissary, and I know his desires! He will not associate himself with such…” Jeff paused, the light of the sunset playing across his rugged features.

    “…Monkeys.”

  • claude le monde

    “Heir archy” = best unintentional pun

  • claude le monde

    only the stupid ones! it saves time, you see.

  • Blake

    As much as this website has made a Feature about one of Scott Adams’ blog entires The following is one that should get as much attention here and I quite eagerly await actual answers to the final question in this link (but am not holding my breath)

    http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/measuring_fairness/

  • Hanna

    @claude le monde
    between your passive-agressiveness and knee-jerk board-trolling you embody a stereotype that is less Informed Debate and more That Girl From Art School.

    unless you’re actually familiar with scott adams and the context of his writings it’s You that has “nothing to bring to the table” within a thread based on scott adams writings.

  • claude le monde

    excitingly, internet commenting is a party to which all are invited, even those who are not disciples of “scott adams [sic] writings” or the great man [SIC!!!] himself. moreover, my previous experience with:

    1. feminism
    2. MRAs
    3. debate
    4. the internet
    5. logic and sense,

    as well as my love of comedy!!!!!, make me a highly qualified candidate for this position. thank you for capitalizing You. it has given me a sense of importance.

  • claude le monde

    “would i rather be male” ≠ “do men experience a different and greater set of privileges in society.” the question he proposes is not a balanced one because it conflates the personal sense of the self with class-based privileges and inequities. for example, most people would agree that people of color experience discrimination. however, asking them if they would want to be a white person involves a whole lot more than just swapping privilege. the question conflates the personal/emotional with the political/legal.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7JYJNBD5ME6PWHXCFB7M7INSJY Judith

    I also work for the T(h)eir-archy

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UJXVNSJHB5DVUBAEERHXQQNKTI Lisa

    I have to say, I’m pretty impressed. Because you are absolutely right.

    I myself claim that no one should hate anyone else, because most people are simply amalgams of their life experiences. Despite that, I find myself reading various comment threads and thinking about how much I HATE right-wing types.

    And I have to remind myself that, even though I profoundly disagree with their views, they, too, are merely reflections of their perceptions of their life experiences and teachings.

  • Kris Weaver

    With all due respect, the “wage gap” vanishes if you compare SAME JOB AND SAME WORK HISTORY/CREDENTIALS! The wage gap only appears when you examine a worker who works 40 hours a week and a worker who works 40 hrs+20 or so hours of over time and only examine their paycheck differences and not their work hour differences. Or if you compare workers who are doing two different job’s.

     Fact: Women make more in part time job’s then Men in part time jobs.
     Fact: Career Women make more then career men.
     Fact: Gen Y Women on average make 1.25$ more then Gen Y Men on average.

  • Kris Weaver

    The time for kidding ended some time in the 90′s. After more than 20 years into the war on boy’s and dealing with severe institutional discrimination concepts like forgiveness,mercy, and giving others the benefit of the doubt seem lopsidedly useless.

    What is the point in forgiving people if they will just keep punching you in the face?
    What is the point of mercy or compassion when it is only something that is expected from you towards another but never the other way around, even though you never done anything that your accused of? No dice.

  • Kris Weaver

    The time for kidding ended some time in the 90′s. After more than 20 years into the war on boy’s and dealing with severe institutional discrimination concepts like forgiveness,mercy, and giving others the benefit of the doubt seem lopsidedly useless.

    What is the point in forgiving people if they will just keep punching you in the face?
    What is the point of mercy or compassion when it is only something that is expected from you towards another but never the other way around, even though you never done anything that your accused of? No dice.

  • Kris Weaver

    Look up the “all girl’s club”. It is very real.

    1) people shouldn’t hit others unless in self defense. That said we live in an oppressive matriarchy, over in nanticoke pa and live in boyfriend-girlfriend got into a verbal arguement. He pushed her away from his face and threw an empty plastic bottle in her general direction. She stabbed him in the shoulder with a knife. Cops arrested both for domestic violence. Heck in Washington State their Attorney General already advised men not to call the cops for domestic violence unless they were bleeding to death(and even then they might be arrested for DV).

     The fact is women have it too good and don’t want to lose all of their gendered privileges and rights over men(goes back to the old labor struggles in the 1800′s and how women back stabbed men.).

    You have to remember one thing about the various women’s rights movements. They never wanted equality with the average man, they always wanted equality with the few elite men over the average man.

    Look up “mothers of the republic”, it is all there. Out in the open for all to read and understand.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ambrose-Mugwump/100002361865873 Ambrose Mugwump

    Also, his cartoons suck.

  • Karie

    It’s more like paying only male lumberjacks more if they haul more lumber. Or paying lumberjacks based on how much lumber they haul, but somehow punishing female lumberjacks for hauling too much.

  • Jason Thorn

    Keep in mind Scott features (regularly) sociopaths of all kinds in his comic.

  • Anonymous

    I’m really glad that in my neck of the woods, people who call themselves rational thinkers cite their sources.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.burkhart.31 John Burkhart

    The shorter question is when is Scott Adams NOT trolling (If you’ve ever read his books…)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jamie-White/1515213443 Jamie White

    THIS. But it will be a long haul to get there, because it doesn’t just apply to work; it applies to everything in our culture. Stop and think what your automatic assumption is when you hear the words “rapist” or “rape victim” for instance.

    If your assumption is that the “rape victim” is female and that the “rapist” is probably male… well, that understandable bias, seeing as our culture says a lot about women being rape victims and nothing ever about them being the abuser (statistically rare, but NOT unheard of), and the culture likes to pretend that rapes of males, particularly adult males, never happen. They happen a lot, actually, but they tend to go unreported – because men are ashamed to admit they “couldn’t protect themselves”. It’s hard enough to get women to deal with this kind of shaming pressure – you add in sexist assumptions that women are delicate flowers but men, men are supposed to be badass and… yeah. And in the case when a sexual abuser or assailant is female and the victim is male, nobody wants to believe it or they brush it off like it’s a joke.

    What this means is that male sexual abuse victims are even LESS likely to seek help, even though they need it just as badly. It’s insulting, demeaning, and harmful to BOTH sexes to assume that only men can commit these crimes and that only women can’t defend themselves. It reinforces the idea that women are weak (already something we’re getting too much feedback about), and it endorses the completely stupid idea of men not being able to have any normal, human “weakness” (read: being able to be caught off guard, etc.).

    Also, while this technically goes to “jobs”, it goes beyond it, into our very intellectual freedom and scientific advancement: the STEM fields are disturbingly gender-biased where it actually counts. It is IMPROBABLY rare in the fields of physics, engineering, or chemistry, to see women get grants and/or have a paper published. As in, these things go to men at a disproportionate rate, even after you’ve controlled for the smaller number of women in those fields. Only biology and the so-called “soft” science fields, the social sciences, seem to have loosened on this bias. Physics and chem are still very much boys’ clubs, whereas of course, the squishy life-sciences and “emotional” and “people-studying” fields, those, those are appropriate for women, apparently, because they’re much more successful in them. I don’t think it’s a conscious bias, but it’s apparently such a common one that it’s well-supported by the worryingly strong statistical data. And what this suggests is that women aren’t being taken seriously in certain scientific fields, regardless of expertise; who knows what amazing and useful ideas and experiments aren’t getting put out there, or take far too long to get out there, because they’re done by women and the grants or publication space are going to a guy instead?

    All these biases are laced throughout the culture, embedded in it in both obvious and non-obvious places in every layer from academics to the street corner, apply to both sexes and all ages and races, and they literally hurt ALL people. And I really, really wish people would realize this and stop assuming that when someone calls themselves a “feminist” that they want superiority for women. Because I count myself as a “feminist” and I have never wanted more than men and women to be treated with EQUAL respect, care and integrity.

    It’s easier said than done, especially when so many people don’t realize how and why the system hurts them. :

  • http://www.thechildhealthsite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1 Edcedc8
  • http://twitter.com/tennysonestead Tennyson E. Stead

    We break from the emotional violence of this comment section to report that the above post is clever and hilarious.

  • http://twitter.com/tennysonestead Tennyson E. Stead

    Gentlemen, it’s been a long time since I have felt as ashamed of my gender as I have felt reading this comment section. The Mary Sue is, according to it’s own mission statement, a website written by geek women for geek women. As a man, it makes a lot of sense to read these articles with the intent of seeing a geek issue from a women’s perspective – by which I mean an individual woman’s perspective. Each of the Mary Sue’s writers has her own experience, her own passions and interests, and so forth. At the same time, I think this site has done a great job of assembling a group of women who write very well, and who collectively do a great job of answering the need for a geek cultural female voice. At the same time, I think they are fantastic at highlighting the subtle and not so subtle mysoginisms that geeks have, over time, rendered institutional to our subculture.

    What I’m saying is that coming here as a man makes sense if you shut up and listen. Coming here with a defensive chip on your shoulder, on the other hand, makes me want to remind you that you are a guest in someone else’s house. Whatever your interests or political beliefs may be, the fact that you believe it is acceptable for you to disrespect the readers and writers of this website does two things. On the one hand, it highlights the already obvious need for websites like The Mary Sue. At the same time, it violates the safety that a website like this can create for geek girls.

    My reaction to this article is something I would love to discuss, but it takes a back seat to the appalling behavior of the males commenting on it. Your views are not important unless they contribute to the conversation that is happening around you, and this is a conversation about Geek Girl Culture. This entire comment board strikes me as a more passive-aggressive version of the sand-kicking, hair-pulling chaos of an elementary school recess, and it’s because the boys won’t leave the girls alone to play jump rope.

    Play jump rope here, or go play tag somewhere else. Be responsible for your choices, and for the context in which they occur. That’s what it takes to be a man. That’s what you need to be doing if you are going to speak on behalf of other men, as you have done here. To do otherwise is to shame yourself, me, and the other men who value this particular community of women.

  • Xavier

    This site is all about bitching, complaining, and whining.

  • http://twitter.com/MelissiaKuromoi Melissia

    “Scott Adam’s comments do have a certain logic”

    Something can have “logic” to it while still being ignorant, unintelligent and insulting.

  • Guest

    Yes, I never understand statements like that. Everyone’s experience is different I suppose, but it rings false to me. With my husband and our male and female friends, generally whoever gets to a door first holds it open; just a nice thing to do. And I don’t get served first in restaurants, most servers seem to go around the table clockwise or counter regardless of gender. It seems like they’re making up preferential treatment where none exists. Or they grew up in the 50s and think nothing has changed.

  • Anonymous

    Well at least you responded with a nice logical ad hom attack.

  • Anonymous

    Personal bias and anecdotes. Nice.

  • Anonymous

    Well. 1 example. You win. BTW, she should apologize for being hard on people, as should the men.

  • Anonymous

    “women’s reluctance was based on an accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did.”
    and how do they know it’s an accurate view? Oh, wait it’ a an article from the guardian. The media is notoriously bad at reporting these kinds of things. Do you have good data? no, you don’t. In fact, there hardly is any; which is the problem.

  • Anonymous

    No, it makes you someone who takes personal bias and anecdotes as facts.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you! Glad to have my valuable personal experience validated. And of course, you bring a lot to the table as well. Enjoy your cubicle today!

  • Anonymous

    Seems like some peoples’ sarcasm detectors are not working.