Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Dilbert And The Men’s Movement
Something interesting happened in the blogosphere a few weeks back. Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, asked his blog readers to vote on the topic they most wanted to talk about. The topic was, by a landslide, "Mens Rights". So Scott made a post about it. And all hell broke loose.
-By Caleb Jones
Scott freaked out and took down his post.
That was a few weeks ago. Scott has reposted his post, with an explanation of why he took it down, here. I'm going to ignore his reasons for why he took it down and re-posted, because I frankly don't care. But here is the meat of his original post with my comments:
According to my readers, examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women. True.
You might add to this list the entire area of manners. 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?
Eh. Don't really care about that one.
Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.
True more or less.
Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.
An excellent point, and it applies to many situations you wouldn't think about. I've posed the question that even if women made more money then men, do you really think women would be expected to pay alimony to men after a divorce? Uh, no. How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don’t think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said.
Exactly. You think it's an issue of who makes more or who drives better or whatever. It isn't. It's strictly an issue of who's the boy, and who's the girl.
Women will counter with their own list of wrongs, starting with the well-known statistic that women earn only 80 cents on the dollar, on average, compared to what men earn for the same jobs. My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.
Women will point out that few females are in top management jobs. Men will argue that if you ask a sample group of young men and young women if they would be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve such power, men are far more likely to say yes. In my personal non-scientific polling, men are about ten times more likely than women to trade family time for the highest level of career success.
Scott answered this common excuse of women so well, there's nothing more I need to say. In terms of business and career, men generally work harder and sacrifice more. So they get paid more. It's that simple. Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights: Get over it, you bunch of pussies. Now before we get pissed at him, let's listen to his explanation:
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.
This goes back to a common thought process people have, first articulated by another blogger, Vox Day, and that is deep down, most men and women don't consider women responsible for their actions. They "can't help it", they're "women". Therefore, they should be treated differently than men, who are fully responsible for what they do.
Scott isn't going to say it that way, of course. But that's where he's coming from. It's where most people are coming from. (Even if they won't admit it.)
Fairness is an illusion. It’s unobtainable in the real world.
He's absolutely right about that. There is no such thing as fairness in the real world. I wish more people understood this, particularly in their political views. I’m happy that I can open jars with my bare hands. I like being able to lift heavy objects. And I don’t mind that women get served first in restaurants because I don’t like staring at food that I can’t yet eat.
He's saying "Hey, there are some really great things about being a guy! So don't worry if things aren't fair." That's true, but for every cool thing he can give me about being a guy, I can counter with a cool thing about being a girl. Look, I love kids. I'd love to impregnate a bunch of women and then raise the kids myself and get child support checks from all the women. That would be awesome. So yeah, I can open jars with my bare hands, but I can't do that. See my point? It's an invalid argument.
If you’re feeling unfairly treated because women outlive men, try visiting an Assisted Living facility and see how delighted the old ladies are about the extra ten years of pushing the walker around. It makes dying look like a bargain. Now he's just being silly. The fact that some women choose to not take care of their bodies has nothing to do why it's a good or bad thing women live longer than men. I'd like to live, thank you. I don’t like the fact that the legal system treats men more harshly than women. But part of being male is the automatic feeling of team. If someone on the team screws up, we all take the hit.
Yuck! Count me out of that system. I'm an individualist, not a collectivist. I strongly believe the world would be a better place if people suffered more for their own stupidity or irresponsibility, instead of constantly being bailed out by their neighbors (who are usually doing so at the point of a gun).
Don’t kid yourself that men haven’t earned some harsh treatment from the legal system. On the plus side, if I’m trapped in a burning car someday, a man will be the one pulling me out. It’s a package deal. I like being on my team. Again, that same invalid argument. We get treated like shit by the legal system, but hey, we're physically stronger. So it's all okay! I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group.
What, in this politically correct, hyper-frightened society of fat, brainwashed, bored people looking to be offended at all times? Ohhhhh, yes you will. I happen to know a little something about discussing highly controversial, emotionally-charged topics. 🙂
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. Yep, and I already told you why he thinks this way.
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.
In terms of macro thinking, in terms of the big picture, I agree with this.
Which of the following is more difficult?
A) Changing the entire family court system so that divorced men are treated equally to divorced women.
B) Refrain from ever getting married.
The answer is, of course, B.
Instead of focusing my energies on changing the system, I just won't get married. So any time one of my women asks me to marry them (which happens all the time) or have babies with them (which also happens all the time), I just calmly say no, then point at any number of her girlfriends, female coworkers, or female family members and say "See what they did to use the force of law to destroy the financial lives of their ex-husbands / baby daddies? That's why my answer is no. When women stop doing that, I'll start getting married and having babies again."
I'm not holding my breath.
However, in terms of just "getting over with it", that's where he's dead, dead wrong. (By the way, Scott is married, and based on some of his blog posts, his balls are pretty well locked away in little Ms. Dilbert's purse.) What men should do is start refusing to get married. If 50% or even just 30% of men between the ages of 18 and 35 suddenly stopped marrying women, the unfair laws regarding child support, divorce, alimony, communal property, etc, would miraculously vanish within six months, or at least become much less oppressive.
News flash, women want to get married and live the (false) fairy tale picket-fence life. The reason the legal system is so stacked against men is because men put with it and give women what they want anyway (as in marriage, children, "commitment", moving in together, financial support, etc).
There's only one way to change things in society. And it's not staging protests or voting for certain parties or politicians. It's refusing to participate. When men start refusing to participate in the family court system by completely boycotting marriage and getting really, really, really picky about when or if they impregnate women, you'll see the family court system become gender-fair so fast, you won't believe your eyes. I promise.
Will men actually do that?
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
spartan 2015-01-03 05:22:06
As always I agree with most of what you said. But what about the growing number of men who refuse to getting married? Have you ever heard about MGTOW? I'm very much into mgtow philosophy. Marriage rate in the US is at an all time low. THIS is the answer to the court system screwing men 100% of the time.
Blackdragon 2015-01-03 11:54:45
MGTOW is great but my understanding is that they advocate not dating women or having sex *at all*. Men like women and like sex, so I don't think that advice is going to work. But all the rest of the MGTOW stuff like avoiding legal marriage is fantastic.
K 2015-08-18 09:27:17
“Women will point out that few females are in top management jobs. Men will argue that if you ask a sample group of young men and young women if they would be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve such power, men are far more likely to say yes. In my personal non-scientific polling, men are about ten times more likely than women to trade family time for the highest level of career success.” In my opinion this is because it is far far more difficult for a woman to have a family (i.e. a life partner and 1-2 children) while investing plenty of time into their earning success – or life-purpose-other-than-bearing-kids success – than it is for a man. In other words, because of the expectations about the individual parents´ roles that men and the society at large hold, it is generally speaking much easier to be a man-CEO than a woman-CEO (CEO here being the abbreviation for anyone putting more time in their financial / work / hobby success than other people in their social circles on average). In most cases, women have to decide whether they want a career or a family. As if having to make such choice isn´t bad enough, whichever option they eventually choose, they will be criticised. Men can have both AND be applauded for their high earnings. Society promotes monogamy. Society promotes mothers at home with kids and fathers at work providing for their families, regardless of what the individuals prefer. (Note that if you want to have children with a girl or girls younger than you are, which most of you do, right? (not you, BD) her earning potential will likely not yet be as developed as yours and your joint decision to have kids is effectively blocking her from developing it.) I’d love to impregnate a bunch of women and then raise the kids myself and get child support checks from all the women. If you really want to experience the woman´s deal, get yourself impregnated by a bunch of men, give birth to the kids and than raise them on the child support checks. Then let me know what it did to your happiness and self-esteem.
Blackdragon 2015-08-18 19:17:31
In most cases, women have to decide whether they want a career or a family. As if having to make such choice isn´t bad enough, whichever option they eventually choose, they will be criticised. Men can have both AND be applauded for their high earnings.No they can't. "Have a family" means something very different for a man than a woman. "Have a family" for a man means have kids while he goes and works, as you said. "Have a family" for a woman means spending a massive amount of personal time with her kids. Therefore if the male definition of "have a family" was female's definition, men would also have to choose, just like women do: work or family, pick one. Spend most of your time at work or most of your time with your kids. The problem with women, since the 90s, is that they want both of these things, while men realize you can only have one.
Pyro Nagus 2016-08-12 10:55:43
Yuck! Count me out of that system. I’m an individualist, not a collectivist. I strongly believe the world would be a better place if people suffered more for their own stupidity or irresponsibility, instead of constantly being bailed out by their neighbors (who are usually doing so at the point of a gun).You are now officially my role model.
If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time...This is a logical assessment Scott made. But that's the problem. It's only logical. What most people don't realize is that logic is only correct in it's given context. Rationality one the other hand focuses on the bigger picture. The only way to achieve rationality is to develop a result-oriented mindset. I think the term you coined best describes this brand of logic. Guy-logic indeed. lol