This blog post by Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist) has gotten a LOT of flack recently. While I think he made a number of incredibly ridiculous statements, I also don't know that I have ANY idea what point he is really trying to make? Initially, I believed (along with I think the general public) that he was saying that men are ultimately beings that have uncontrollable amounts of sexual desire and they can't possibly be happy unless allowed to fufill these desires without limitation? Adams seems to be making the point that women tamper any chance of men being truly happy as it's expected that men are monogomous while in a relationship. However, Adams also mentions that Hugh Hefner wasn't fufilled when he was single OR married. He also seems to be making the assumption that women are in no way sexual beings or that their needs are drastically lower than men.
I don't know. His argument doesn't make much sense to me. I don't know whether to be offended or just think he's an idiot. I'm leaning toward idiot.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
1 comment:
Wow, I'm going to go with "idiot". First of all, that whole "man will never be satisfied with one woman, and expecting him to do so is against nature" is all, well, bull. If that's his argument (can't fight animal nature), opposable thumbs should be rejected as well.
No one FORCES men to get married (in most modern, American cases, I guess). They don't HAVE to promise to stay with one woman their whole lives. To go through with a marriage, when you still believe you "can't fight nature" makes marriage a sham. Don't get married if you can't keep your peg out of that hole.
Finally, I'm so sick of "powerful" men cheating these days. Whether it's a bathroom stall at an airport, a secret rendezvous with an underage intern, or a Tweetpic for crying out loud...it's PATHETIC. Here's what I would gather from all this: These men who cheat - and then GET CAUGHT! - are idiots. I have been trying to think about any famous/powerful women who have cheated and then been publicly humiliated by the cheat. They answer I have is NONE. Not one.
Claiming that men are predisposed to cheat is a cop out. If that IS the case? I can't wait until they "evolve" enough to figure out the difference between a tweet and a private message.
Oh, wait - chemical castration?! Seriously? I can't even begin to figure out where/why/when that is relevant or necessary. The guy's a total moron.
I still do love Dilbert, though.
Post a Comment