Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Dilbert Creator Deletes Misogynist Rant

Illustration for article titled iDilbert/i Creator Deletes Misogynist Rant

Dilbert creator Scott Adams' blog post comparing women to children begging for candy may be gone, but it is certainly not forgotten.


On March 7, 2011 Adams wrote about a topic that he claims his readers were clamoring for him to discuss: men's rights.

Adams writes:

This is a surprisingly good topic. It's dangerous. It's relevant. It isn't overdone. And apparently you care.


Hmm. It's hard to say why "men's rights" has yet to become an overdone topic. Perhaps it's because historically, men (and particularly relevant in Adams' case, Caucasian men) have had the upper hand in just about any country in any time period, compared to women and other minorities.

So hearing arguments from a successful white male begging us to not only see him as a marginalized individual, but to also see the similarities between women and "the mentally handicapped", is indeed a bit rare.

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?

Whoa. Excellent point, Scott. You (and your devoted readers) are sharp as tacks. Can I imagine a world where men are given preferential treatment? Honestly, no! Are they? I have no idea. Please go on to explain how these things work, creator of notoriously cutting edge comic Dilbert.

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.

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.


Good to know men still have those categories on lockdown, right guys? High fives all around for retaining complete and total control of sports, humor, and war. At least women can't take those things away from you. The last thing we need right now is another "national emergency" like that.

Adams goes on to discuss the wage gap, different car insurance premiums based on gender, and why women would get paid more if only they were willing to sacrifice "family time".


He also takes a moment to address readers who report being frustrated by the lack of attention paid to men's rights by telling them to stop acting like a bunch of "pussies".

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.

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It's called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you're still crying about your pawn when you're having your way with the queen, there's something wrong with you and it isn't men's rights.

Fairness is an illusion. It's unobtainable in the real world. 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.

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.


After reading such a compelling argument for why women should be knocking each other unconscious trying to marry this peach, it's hard to understand why Adams eventually deleted this blog entry.

Rumor has it, this is why:

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.


Ohhhh. Got it. Women are pretty emotional, which also means they are pretty illogical. They also love shoes, and shopping, and can't seem to keep a man!

It's a shame you won't be writing things like this in a public forum anymore, Scott. But definitely let me know if you end up creating a mailing list (solely for your hyper-intelligent readers) so I don't miss out on hearing your warped views of women. Forgive me if I don't sign up right away. I have this jar I've been trying to open, but I'll just have to wait until my boyfriend gets home from work.


Scott Adams Deleted Post [Tiny Sprout]

Scott Adams Men's Rights [The Mary Sue]

Scott Adams to Men's Rights Activists: Don't bother arguing with women; they're like children [Feministe]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter


Oh, Jezebel. I often pray that you are not the voice that represents feminism in the world, and this is a perfect example of why.

He lists six ways that men have a disadvantage in this world, and you not only argue with only one of those six as if your argument refutes all six, but you argue in such a way as to sound as if you're coming down in support of genital mutilation of men.

Your statement "[Male circumcision] is a common procedure that has very little effect on sensation or overall well-being" is glaringly ignorant, and worse, downright dangerous, as it could continue to propagate this idea that circumcision is a good idea.

First, it very much DOES decrease sensation. By a significant amount. One need only look at the differences between the glans of a penis that has and has not been circumcised to see why. Plus, there's the added testimonies from men who have had procedures later in life to either attempt to cover the glans with stretched or added tissue, or men who have had late-life circumcisions (although I would not be surprised if that latter group skewed slightly toward the "blowing off the change as if it's nothing" end of things, since that sort of change is generally religiously motivated, and we're guys).

Second, obviously you've never seen pictures of circumcision gone wrong.

And just to reiterate, you also failed to refute in ANY fashion the claims of lower life expectancy, higher suicide rates, discrimination within the legal system, the military draft, and government agencies being designed for women. Of course, the reasons you fail to refute them is not simply "laziness" or "you didn't feel it needed to be done", but is in fact that they're irrefutable. You know that they're true.

The problem is that you feel as if they're also justified. And *that* pushes you from "feminism" to "discrimination". And discrimination is wrong, no matter who's being discriminated against.

You then go on to mix his points up via a word blender to try and make your weak stance stronger, while completely failing to refute his points, yet again. We might be "kings" in the arenas of "sports, humor, and war", but I personally (and probably a lot of men) don't WANT at least two of those things in their lives. So all I have is humor left. So I get humor, and women get... everything else? Well, that seems fair. Not.

I could go on, but really, I have better things to do with my time, the rest of it's pretty obvious, and the support of genital mutilation just takes the cake all on its own. Who'dathunk a "feminist" blog would be supporting genital mutilation?