This time, Adams is talking about the "natural instincts" of men which, in case you didn't know, are apparently to rape, cheat, to be "offensive", etc.
Since the idea of dissecting another one of these tirades is largely exhausting, let's look at a few particularly "awesome" quotes:
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. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn't ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, "Here's your square hole"?
Wow. Trying to make it sound like your argument falls under the category of "gender theory" while saying that "boys" are pretty much designed to be rapists and we'd better get used to it is…I don't even know what it is anymore.
I honestly no idea why Scott Adams keeps blogging about these things. Obviously, they're his opinions and he wants to discuss them, which I can't fault him for. By writing this very post, I am doing exactly what he is doing: stating my opinion.
My question is what does he aim to get out of posting these blog entries? Does he want to gather some like-minded people for some sort of elegant tea party or camping trip? Does he have a lack of people with whom to discuss theories that seem to be in line with "Men are designed to be rapists. Period. Change the laws because men aren't going to stop raping women"?
If so, I'm glad he lacks that friend group.
The only other answer I can come up with is some sort of half-baked "all press is good press" notion. But does Dilbert even need press? And is this the type of thing that would actually create a spike in readership and/or fans?
Stranger still, is how Adams wraps up this particular blog entry:
But in general, society is organized as a virtual prison for men's natural desires. I don't have a solution in mind. It's a zero sum game. If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa. And there's no real middle ground because that would look like tweeting a picture of your junk with your underpants still on. Some things just don't have a compromise solution.
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.
I, for one, will keep an eye out for this miracle pill that will change the type of "men" Adams is referring to from rapists into "huggers." Apparently, that's the one and only way things will change.
Pegs and Holes [DilbertBlog]