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.



Comments are closed.