The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Definition of ‘Misogynist’

Posted on | March 27, 2011 | 29 Comments

A guy who thinks feminists are funny when they’re angry.

And of course, they’re always angry, aren’t they? “Dilbert” cartoonist Scott Adams mocked them for fun:

This weekend the top twitter meme in the solar system, at least for a few hours, involved Feminist blogs calling me an ignorant, misogynist asshole.

Adams explains that what seemed to be an over-the-top putdown of women on his blog was, in fact, a satire of the thinking of the so-called “men’s rights movement.” What he accidentally proved — as if we needed more proof — is the well-known fact that feminists can’t take a joke. The joke they couldn’t take was this:

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 paragraph, as such, is offensive. But when you consider that it was part of a post in which Adams addressed himself to the “men’s rights movement” — making it clear that he has no interest in joining their disgruntled Beta-male drum-circle whinefest — perhaps you can begin to see that the joke is not actually at the expense of women.

The “tell” here is the sentence: “You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first.” This is your gigantic clue that Adams is pulling your leg, if nothing else in the entire post had previously clued you in. (For example, the sentence: “Get over it, you bunch of pussies.” Like, how many clues do you need?)

For the humor-impaired: Adams was mocking the logic of “men’s rights.” Ergo, the comparison of women to children or the mentally handicapped — the not-exactly-subtle implication of women’s intellectual inferiority — was actually a parody of the sort of male chauvinistic beliefs that Adams assumes must inspire “men’s rights” activism.

Despite the fact that Adams did everything but put a “farce” disclaimer on his post, however, it caught the attention of the Thought Police and, seeing the screeching hysteria of commenters (including Amanda Marcotte) at Feministing, Adams showed up in the comments to ask:

Is this an entire website dedicated to poor reading comprehension?

No, Mr. Adams: It’s an entire website dedicated to feminists being angry, which is their raison d’etre.

Fish gotta swim. Birds gotta fly. And the mere fact that I’ve taken time to try to explain your actual meaning will inevitably be cited as further evidence that I, too, am an ignorant misogystic asshole.

OUTLAW!

Bookmark and Share
Category: Feminism, humor

Comments

  • Joe

    Scott Adams is a funny guy.

  • JeffS

    What he accidentally proved — as if we needed more proof — is the well-known fact that feminists can’t take a joke.

    Feminists top the list, but they ain’t alone by any means. Most lefties can’t take criticism, let alone a joke. Amanduh and her ilk merely lead the way.

  • http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/ Mike

    You sure do like beating an almost dead horse. I read the piece by Adams and tried to make it through the comments section over at the Feminazi web site, but couldn’t stand it…made my eyes water after reading about half a page.

    Adams is right though, about rational discussion and emotions getting in the way which changes the whole scope of the discussion. An example would be a talk between you and your spouse. Everything’s going hunky-dory until you misstep and say the wrong thing or make light of something your spouse says. After that, it’s Katy bar the door because nothing you say can make the misstep go away. This may be a misogynistic statement, but, women are like elephants…they never forget.

  • Pingback: Beating The Dead Horse Of Feminism..Or Misogynism Revisited « That Mr. G Guy's Blog

  • Anonymous

    Well Stacy, you are an ignorant misogynistic asshole, but we love you anyway. Don’t ever change.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve never ever seen you write anything remotely misogynistic. Those people are seeing things that simply aren’t there – most likely as a form of projection for their own hatred of femininity (and we all know that feminists loathe all that is feminine about being female). From what I understand, you are a loving husband and father who is quite proud of his daughter’s wonderful achievements. Those aren’t typically characteristics of a woman-hater.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705855851 Joy McCann

    I like the fact that you’re making fun of feminists, and then using the catch-phrase “Outlaw!” to identify yourself with the feminist Jeff Goldstein.

    BECAUSE OF THE LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY!!!

    ‘Cause, you know: men who have hangups about their weird caricatures of what feminism means are so damned cute when they are trying desperately to be provocative.

  • Guest

    This sounds like facts and logic which will get you nowhere. Emotions rule in any argument like this and never mind that you’re right.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Happened to me this weekend. But I will state for the record that my wife is not an elephant!

  • Anonymous

    It’s clearly working for you, ma’am. ;)

  • http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/ Mike

    I guess that’s one of those statements that COULD be taken out of context.

  • Anonymous

    Feminism? How cute. Now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!

  • Anonymous

    Joy, I was married to a Feminist…only I call the Feminist Strormtroopers. A whole new happier life started the day she divorced me

  • http://www.haemet.blogivsts.com Roxeanne de Luca

    Maybe I’m one of those overly emotional ladies, but in my old age, I can’t help but think that a man who finds his girlfriend to be fundamentally irrational ought to find another one, rather than dissing all of the sex. A man who marries a feather-brain has no one to blame but himself when the feather-brain acts like accordingly. A man who wants to get laid without emotional involvement or dealing with the uncomfortable aspects of the female sex ought to just find a prostitute, or switch teams.

    Either way, I’m not sure why anyone of character would feel the need to condescend towards one’s significant other or friends…..

    (Apply this however you want to this situation; I would opine that both the men’s rights activists who believe that, as well as the femisogynists who make a career out of blaming the patriarchy and treating all men as rapists, would be appropriate targets.)

  • Anonymous

    A man who describes women as “fundamentally irrational” — in a general sense — is merely saying that it is impossible to get along with women without taking into account women’s emotions.

    And you are saying that this is wrong, Roxeanne?

  • Anonymous

    The allusion was to Jeff Goldstein’s arguments about “intentionalism,” and quite to the point: Feminists were trying to deprive Scott Adams of agency over the meaning of his own writing.

  • Anonymous

    I do have a message for those angry humorless feminazis: Lighten up, bytches! What a miserable existence it must be, to always be offended by everything. Just like the perpetually offended islamic rageboys – the only people “feminists” should REALLY be offended over due to how they treat women (but because that wouldn’t be PC so they are silent about it).

  • Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Scott Adams manages to surprise me.

  • Anonymous

    Fish gotta swim.

    So that’s why fish don’t need a bicycle.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Is that a threat Michael?

  • http://www.haemet.blogivists.com Roxeanne de Luca

    Nice bait-and-switch, Stacy, but that’s not what those men are saying. While I applaud you for the cleverness of it, I dispute the correctness of it.

    “Irrational” is defined as “Without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason”, or “Without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment”.

    Therefore, irrationality is not a function of having emotions in addition to being possessed of reason and judgment; it is the absence of reason, thoughtfulness, and wisdom.

    So yes, it is wrong, Stacy – wrong because you are taking something dehumanising and white-washing it, ignoring the reality that there are men out there who think that women are not capable of reason – thus defining “reason” (what sets us apart from animals) as a purely male endeavour. Incidentally, our legal system reflected just this view in living memory – which deprived women of their rights, not on the basis of an individual analysis of her mental faculties, but on the belief that being a woman made her incapable of normal (i.e. male) reason.

    So the idea that men treating women as “irrational” is somehow a good thing, and not a statement that her faculties of reason are nonexistent is… um… total bullshit. Men who think that women are fundamentally irrational are disciples of Gustave La Bon:

    In the most intelligent races, as among the Parisians, there are a large number of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains. This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion. All psychologists who have studied the intelligence of women, as well as poets and novelists, recognize today that they represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and that they are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man.

    Yet when men express the view that we are irrational, it’s totally okay, right, Stacy?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1385852725 Richard Mcenroe

    Definition of a misognist. Hmm. I’m considering telling you what he said when you left the table at Santa Monica… nah…

  • Anonymous

    No, actually they’re cute when they’re angry, bless their little hearts.

  • http://ak4mc.us/2c/2011/ McGehee

    Does this weird caricature of what feminism means make my ass look fat?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_377ED42ISJIFXSCTSQSLO25U4Y Ric

    Women, for the most part, seem stuck at 3 emotionally.

    Not all the time mind you, and that is how we become fooled.

  • Quartermaster

    I’ve some reading among the men that call themselves Men’s Rights Activists. I’ve yet to see any of them call women irrational, or mindless. To the contrary, the decisions women have made in stripping men of their families and wealth so those women can go whoring about with another man, have been quite rational, to a point. Alas, it has been in response to radical feminism that those women are doing what they have done. If they would consider what they are really doing, then they would realize that their empowerment comes at the expense of their children.

    I like a lot of what you write, but I’m not sure you mean to call MRAs “Beta Males.” The men I’ve seen drug through family courts and lie about to authorities so they can get restraining order against and have them put out on the street, with half their income taken, often left with less than they need to live themselves, or jailed like criminals when faced with support orders they can’t pay, and never will be able to pay, simply so their “empowered wife” can live a new life, are anything but beta males. Most survive because they are strong men. Their complaints are legit, and they are not whining.

  • Rayabacus

    As Ben Franklin once said, “Bigamy is having one wife too many – monogamy is the same.” I might be somewhat jaded as I have already spent a small fortune purchasing two wives. Although I reaalllllly, realllly love the female of the species, I seriously doubt that I will ever entertain the purchase of another.

  • http://www.leftbankofthecharles.com Charles

    Don’t you see Gustave La Bon’s joke: “In the most intelligent races, as among the Parisians…”

    Wasn’t it Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers who posited that men tend to be thinkers and women tend to be feelers? Stacy has at least 50 years of enlightened pop psychology on his side.

  • http://twitter.com/alwaysfiredup alwaysfiredup

    There’s quite a gulf between “women tend to be feelers” and “women are not capable of reason”, I’m afraid.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE