Dear Scott Adams,
You said some things recently, things which you have since deleted without realizing that
the internet is forever particularly when you make dumb, offensive blog posts. I could sit here and tackle your whole post, but instead I'll focus on the most egregious part of your
pile of shit "delightful" essay.
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.
I have to hand it to you, you've managed to leave me speechless. However, I have to ask, did you think comparing women to children or the "mentally handicapped" was original? Clearly you've never had the distinct pleasure of being called "young lady" while trying to speak to a group of (usually older, white) men. You've never been told you're being "hysterical," or that your anger is the result of hormones run amok in your body. You've never been made to feel that your completely valid arguments are invalidated because you are female and therefore incapable of logical, adult thinking. If you sat and thought about it, you might have to admit that those darn feminist might actually have a point, but that would mean admitting you're wrong which is just too damn hard.
And what, pray tell, are the more important battles? Your right to leave the toilet seat up? To scratch yourself in public? (See, I can do stereotypes too!) Then again, maybe it's world hunger, or war you value more. Maybe you'd like to address violence against women, the movement in this country to deny women bodily autonomy, or the gender gap in math and science.
Oh, wait, forget that last one. Our lady brains aren't equipped to handle math and science, right?
Had I the time, I'd quote more than one paragraph, but I also wanted to address
your response to criticism on Feministe.
Is this an entire website dedicated to poor reading comprehension? I don’t think one of you understood the writing. You’re all hopping mad about your own misinterpretations.
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.
Silly me! I'm incapable of understanding your genius! Clearly words mean whatever you want them to and my poor uneducated lady brains are incapable of comprehending them. But your fans? They understood your humor, and I'm sure every single person who has complained about your post was never a fan of your work, had never even heard of
Dilbert (or that your comic also had a short-lived animated series on ABC in which Daniel Stern voiced Dilbert), and just hated you for your sheer genius. Nope, clearly you didn't upset any of your fans.
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.
I’ve written on the topic how you can’t mix incendiary images in the same piece without the readers’ brains treating the images as though they were connected, no matter how clearly you explain that they are not. My regular readers understand that I do that intentionally as part of the fun. When quoted out of context, the piece becomes dangerous.
I know it's totally impossible in your narrow world view, but emotion and rational thinking are not mutually exclusive. For example, your words have infuriated me, and yet for all my justifiable anger, I'm able to calmly and rationally explain to you that your head is firmly lodged in your ass.
Also, please, mansplain to me somemore as to how you're just a poor misunderstood satirist and artist. I've never had a man talk down to me before. (That's sarcasm for those of you with poor reading comprehension.)
You've claimed the whole post (now deleted) was satire, that people missed the point. I beg to differ. Good satire doesn't need to be explained. Good satire means the majority of readers recognize it for what it is and don't come away offended and insulted. A good satirist -- hell, a good
writer doesn't delete his/her work in cowardice when readers interpret his/her work in a way he/she didn't intend and then whine that they're misunderstood. (Though I must admit that I can't imagine you thought your words would be interpreted any other way, and if you did, perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with a dictionary. Might I also recommend you read the works of other satirists, (i.e. Johnathan Swift and Mark Twain)?)
You failed, Mr. Adams. You failed plain and simple, and my best advice for you is to shut up and quit hiding behind your so-called genius. Listen to the criticisms being lodged at you, even the ones you feel are "too angry" or "hysterical" (and recognize the latter for the sexist word it is). Realize a fair number of those who are angry with you are angry because they were fans of your work and feel betrayed on some level that you obviously don't value them as human beings.
We're not idiots, Mr. Adams, we know what we're talking about, and you could stand to learn a lesson in male privilege. Our anger doesn't invalidate our words.
Hoping you stop being a douchecanoe soon,
Jade
P.S.: Windows Media Player happened to pick Chevelle's song "I Get It" for this post. It's absolutely a
very apt song.