There was a point in my life where I was a fan of Dilbert. I actually thought Scott Adams was quite funny. In the last year though he has proven one thing though above all else: Scott Adams is a misogynist douchebag.
Okay, so he doesn't say exactly that, but it's pretty damned close. I figure I should share what he said then, so you know exactly what it is. Now there's a lovely preceding paragraph to all of this about Zebras and Lions, but that was a pretty big text dump and I didn't want to fill the page too much... but trust me, that context sort of makes it worse. What he says is (emphasis mine):
Now consider human males. No doubt you have noticed an alarming trend in the news. Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world. The current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior. That seems right. Obviously we shouldn't blame the victims. I think we all agree on that point. Blame and shame are society's tools for keeping things under control.
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.
Now while he does say that the victim shouldn't be blamed, he effectively claims that the shameful acts he lists earlier are natural male instinctive behavior.
What. The. Fuck.
Sorry Scott, but if any part of your brain feels naturally drawn to exposing yourself on the internet, let alone rape, this is not normal. And the very fact that you, for reasons beyond human understanding, think that society is geared towards women when men dominate the power structures... well... you're an idiot. You may be a member of MENSA, but your insight into the human condition could be bested by a three year old. I don't like using the term "male privilege," as I think it gets tossed around too easily in some circles, but it is a real thing in our society.
And Scott Adams reaction to his myriad of critics will likely be similar this time as it was to the last time he said some hideous public statements: he'll just say the critics "don't get it" and that they lack the "reading comprehension."
...as if after his building a weak argument it's our fault for not agreeing with him.
I'm sure Scott Adams will react with some psudo-intellectualargument that if you get past societal mores and look at it from a strictly biological level, that it is, indeed, a male instinct. However, from a biological perspective society, even moreso than intelligence, is our primary survival mechanism and why we are so successful. And like all mammals, and particularly primates (and elephants, whales, etc), two other central features of our biology are empathy and the so-called theory of mind which allow us to at least give a best guess as to the joy and/or suffering of our fellow creatures. Theory of Mind and empathy as functions of human society are both violated by the concept of forceable sexual intercourse. So even the cold, dispassionate, scientific argument fails.
Even so, I don't see how preventing males from violating a woman's free will, regardless of biological impulse, is somehow unfair to men. Even assuming such an urge is, in fact, an irresistable male tendency (which I don't, but I'll grant Mr. Adams for the sake of the argument), it isn't in any way fair for women to simply accept the humiliation and degradation simply because 'that's what men do.'
If you look at our primate cousins, theft, murder, kidnapping, and numerous other behaviors are common and even central survival mechanisms in the rudimentary societies they live in. But I hardly imagine Mr. Adams would accept the argument that punishment for those behaviors is unfair because we are biologically predisposed.
There's another possibility here: that the article was intended as satire. Adams was asked to write this by people in support of men's rights and he used the phrase "get over it pussies". This should raise critical flags. Why would he use this incredibly sexist language if he was asked to write about men's rights? It's more likely that he was intending to be satirical rather than serious and did a poor job conveying it. It's like A Modest Proposal, but not as well written.
The article doesn't read as satire though. The only satirical parts appear to be near the end where he jokes about chemical castration. He's satirizing feminists at the end, not antifeminists as you claim.
Alright, I've done it again. I responded without reading the whole post. Which bugs me because it's one of my own pet peeves. The context certainly tames the overall perception of the article. He, indeed, addresses the point of how this is unfair to women as well ("If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa.") I also think he's actually suggesting that we'll opt for chemical castration as a last resort preventative to rape. Frankly, his wording doesn't even come off as a joke there, in my mind, as he acknowledges how absurd it sounds, but reinforces the point. I certainly don't think he meant his main thesis to be satire. Satire requires a certain level of detectable and unexcused absurdity, of which there is absolutely none here. All that said, I see where he is actually trying to reason this out, and not truly advocating for no consequence rape. It perhaps redeems him slightly, but it's still fatally flawed in that while men may quite often be raging hormone machines, we have plenty of other ways of channeling it than rape or posting lewd pictures on the internet/text messages.
Okay, I had only read his previous blog, the one comparing women to the handicapped, and hadn't seen the second one. As for his second blog, again I see a satire embedded in it. Does this sound serious? If you think this bit is serious, you're reading him as a proponent of enforced sterility and an end to romance without chemical aid.
"Long term, I think science will come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated for as long as they are on it. It sounds bad, but I suspect that if a man loses his urge for sex, he also doesn’t miss it. Men and women would also need a second drug that increases oxytocin levels in couples who want to bond.Copulation will become extinct. Men who want to reproduce will stop taking the castration drug for a week, fill a few jars with sperm for artificial insemination, and go back on the castration pill.
That might sound to you like a horrible world. But the oxytocin would make us a society of huggers, and no one would be treated as a sex object. You’d have no rape, fewer divorces, stronger friendships, and a lot of other advantages. I think that’s where we’re headed in a few generations."
Right, that's the part that sounds like it could be satirical (as I stated earlier in the comments), but it clearly reads as a sarcastic suggestion to fix what he has presented as a real problem... And it seems to mock those who disapprove of the "natural" male behavior anyways.