(foreword – yeah it’s like a week or two old. I’m working my way through a backlog.)

Dilbert is funny sometimes, but that’s beside the point – I’m far too lazy to try to analyze the comic itself for insight into the author’s views on gender. Esepcially when Scott Adams has thoughtfully provided this writeup: I’m a what?

Let me preface all this by saying that while it’s an issue that ostensibly effects me, there’s so much drama surrounding the whole issue that it’s hard for me to do anything more than peer down at the fracas with an amused grin. Often I suspect that the proponents of each side aren’t entirely motivated by the desire to enact social change or to push forward human rights – they’re more interested in doing that weird human “if you’re not with us you’re against us” thing, where you draw a line in the sand and smugly instruct everyone else to pick which side of your false dichotomy they’re going to stand on. There are totally legit problems that are tangled up in the whole ‘who has more problems, men or women?’ debate, but man, all that drama. It’s such a turn off.

And yet… here I stand, gazing long into an abyss.

Nick Nadel over at guyspeak.com wasn’t particularly impressed with the Scott Adams blog post. He grabs this quote:

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.

…and has this to say in response:

Anyway, Dilbert creator Scott Adams drew controversy this week when he compared women to children and the mentally handicapped in a blog post about equal rights in the workplace.

…

All anyone–be they male, female, or dog who can somehow walk on two legs–wants is a fair shake. It’s guys like you who give us all a bad name and poison intelligent discourse with your misogynist, inflammatory rhetoric. Stick to what you know, Scott– writing puns and drawing adorably wry cartoon dogs wearing nerd glasses.

So far, it looks like “Mr. Dilbert” says something insensitive, and “Chic Geek” condescends to call him out on it. Nick pointedly ignores the last paragraph of Scott’s original post:

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people.  A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us.

Kind of weird, right? Nick says that Scott “compared women and children to the mentally handicapped,” while Scott says, “I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group.” Let’s be fair – Scott isn’t saying that women are mentally handicapped, or that they’re like children. He’s saying that their are common elements in the way that those three groups are treated. You could easily argue (oh so easily) that it’s poor phrasing on Scott’s part, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

My parents had a turn of phrase when arguing with me back when I was a kid – I hated it at the time, but I eventually learned its value: “You’re not trying to understand, you’re trying not to understand.” In other words, one side is deliberately mis-interpreting the other side’s statements in order to falsely justify continued contention where none should exist. Nick should probably take note, because he’s not wrong in criticizing Scott – but come on, “inflammatory rhetoric?” You’ve clearly got your own problems in that regard. (self-aware self-insert – as I suspect I do as well.)

Allow me to indulge in cliche for the following announcement: “but wait, there’s more!”

Reading through Scott Adam’ original post in its entirety, here’s what I take away: after running out his “laundry list” of ways in which society treats men and women differently (including positive and negative benefits for both sexes) he counsels his male readers to “Get over it, you bunch of pussies.”

Which is an insensitive thing to say if you’re trying to have a rational discussion on a serious subject, obviously. So why’d he say it?

First, what if he’s being delibrately insensitive? He could be…

1. He’s using hyperbole to communicate (with a bit of self-aware humor) how little he cares for his male reader’s opinion on the matter, or
2. He’s making fun of the concept of separating ’human rights’ into ‘men’s rights’ and ‘women’s rights’ by ironically emasculating the portion of his male readership that think this way, or
3. He’s acknowledging the form of address that said male readers stereotypically respond to (the punchline is machismo) and using it to tell them to essentially do the right thing for the wrong reason, albeit a reason they may have less trouble accepting. In other words, he’s telling them not to cause drama over men’s rights versus women’s rights, because that’s just the way women are and there’s no use arguing over it.
4. ALSO – he could be trolling.

Second, maybe he doesn’t realize he’s being insensitive? Rather then reasonably exploring this alternative, I’m going to be lazy and give him the benefit of the doubt: his use of a sexist slur is likely deliberate, deployed intentionally for one of the reasons above.

He goes on a bit along the same lines, chiding this sect of male readers (who might, on further reflection, actually be strawmen?) for… maybe… ignoring male privilege? Honestly it gets a little rambling at that point, and I want to skip ahead to the follow up, where he triumphantly says:

You guys! He was kidding the whole time! Can you believe how much drama he caused? omg u fel 4 it? roflmao wut is wrong with ppl? Seriously though,

I thought it would be funny to embrace the Men’s Rights viewpoint in the beginning of the piece and get those guys all lathered up before dismissing their entire membership as a “bunch of pussies.”

I actually find it super interesting that he calls out that point as sort of the crux of the post, because I see it the same way – the questionable phrasing of “women, children, and the mentally handicapped” is worthy of an editorial note, but “you bunch of pussies” is what’s actually interesting, because it’s the point in the original entry where I first start to wonder whether all is as it seems.

I’m embarrassed to admit it, but I was enjoying all of the negative attention on Twitter and wondered how I could keep it going. So I left some comments on several Feminist blogs, mostly questioning the reading comprehension of people who believed I had insulted them. That kept things frothy for about a day.

Let’s review a bit – trolling is by nature insensitive, and it’s directed towards vulnerable people who’ll take the bait and react – you’re causing drama in which you have no personal investment, for its own sake – and while ars gratia artis is not an unworthy goal (and neither are double negatives, apparently) there’s always the inescapable fact that you’re making things worse, at the very least, you’re not making them any better. You can sit back and crow U MAD but under the drama (as I mentioned earlier) there are real issues worthy of attention and reasonable discussion, which you’ve now derailed. So there’s that.

Scott Adams already knows this, apparently:

To the men who were offended by my mocking of Men’s Rights, you’re still a big bunch of pussies. But your criticisms of the legal system are worthy of attention. Even Feminists agree on that point.

… so why would he do it? Well,

A few weeks ago I asked readers of this blog to suggest a topic they would like to see me write about. The topic that got the most up votes, by a landslide, was something called Men’s Rights. Obviously the fix was in. Activists had mobilized their minions to trick me into giving their cause some free publicity.

So the “misogynist, inflammatory rhetoric” was intended to cleverly foil the vote-fixing Men’s Rights people men. That’s the secret of haunted hill. It was trolling the whole time! (And he would’ve got away with it if it weren’t for blah blah blah.)

This is the part where I wonder aloud if I’m missing the point – what’s everyone so up-in-arms about? I’m learning, though – the point is miscommunication, and insensitivity.

Do you want drama? Because this is how you get drama. (I’d link to the Archer episode but FOX has DMCA’d all the easily accessible clips.)

(postscript – Nick’s article was published days after Scott’s updated reply was posted – which means instead of just taking the troll bait like all the posters before him, Nick was actually told it was bait to begin with, and ran with it anyway. I realize you’ve got deadlines, but come on. the whole story is interesting, at least take the time to read up on it.)