Home
Update: Newest material is at the end. Updated 6/22/11

My recent blog post titled Pegs and Holes caused quite a stir on the Internet. One of my harshest critics, feminist website Jezebel.com, accepted my offer to be interviewed about whatever it is that they find so objectionable about me. Jezebel's Editor-in-Chief, Jessica Coen, asked writer Irin Carmon to represent the common viewpoint at Jezebel.

Let's start with some background on the participants to give you some perspective on the bias that each brings to the table. I've been a long-time financial supporter of women's causes, particularly in the abuse realm. I have a long history of promoting and mentoring women in my own businesses.  And I'm pro-choice.

My mother was a strong woman who raised three kids, worked most of her life, taught me to play baseball, and was the first member of the family to get a motorcycle license. She kept a loaded rifle in the kitchen and often used it to gun down rabbits and other assailants to her vegetable garden.  And she didn't take shit from anyone.

My first career, in banking, came to an end when my boss told me there was no potential for a white male to get a promotion until the company did a lot of catching up in the diversity department. My second career, at the phone company, ended the same way, although I stayed around while I worked on my cartooning career on the side.

Irin Carmon has been a staff writer for Jezebel for about two years, during which time she has been covering politics, reproductive rights and health, sexual assault, workplace discrimination, and more. Irin is a 28-year old woman who reminds me that she does not deign to speak for all women.

We begin...

Scott:  Irin, your editor volunteered you to discuss your objections to my recent blog post titled Pegs and Holes. What in particular did you find objectionable?

Irin: Even seen as hyperbole or intentionally incendiary rhetoric, the piece does a disservice to men above all, and to women too. You start out by referring to men in the public eye who are "tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world," and suggest that this happened because "society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable." Leaving aside for a minute the implied equivalence of that laundry list (breaking your marriage vows versus raping someone), this is a bleak perversion of biological determinism. By that reading, the presumed majority of men who don't rape (or cheat, or tweet) are simply better at managing their innate desires to violate someone else, which I'd wager isn't true to the lived experience of most non-raping men. What you deem the "natural instincts of women" isn't defined, but I'm going to assume you mean stereotypes about nurturing and nesting. In fact, history, recent and otherwise, is full of examples of women who were treated as "shameful and criminal" for following their own natural instincts for how to live their lives, whether it was whom to sleep with and when and how often, what jobs women "should" do, how many children to have and when, etc. etc. Until very recently, those strictures were on the books and enforced by men, full stop. Men and women are both better off that all that's no longer official, at least in this country. 

You write, "Society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness." In fact, what's evolved is that women are now politically and, to a greater extent, socially recognized as full human beings. In contexts where women were seen as men's property, rape, or any non-sanctioned sex was (or is) punished as such, and often the women were punished too. We now have a legal and social model that formally recognizes women as people. That changed because some men and women didn't see the world as, in your words, "a zero sum game. If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa," and who saw the harm and dehumanization implicit in that model. Incidentally, though women were historically told they are too volatile or emotional to run the world's affairs, you suggest it's men who are unable to cope. 

You cite Hugh Hefner as an example of a man who has "lost," or implicitly, been societally shamed. ("Society didn't offer him a round hole for his round peg.") But by every possible measure, Hefner's no victim. He is a very rich man. He has a robust sex life with women who look like the ideal upon which he made his fortune. He's an icon. I'd say society has offered him quite the round hole. It's hard to think of a woman who has experienced anything comparable, but then, I don't agree this is a zero sum game. 

My question to you: What do you get out of posting these incendiary commentaries on gender? And why accuse others of misrepresentation when they've mostly stuck to directly quoting you?

Scott: Phew! Wordy.

As for your question, I write what I think will be interesting and thought-provoking. I stake out positions that I haven't seen - whether I believe everything I write or not - because unique viewpoints interest me most. My blog is about inviting readers to wrestle with unique points of view strictly for fun. My regular readers understand that. When my writing is taken out of context, the way Jezebel and others did, it sometimes looks like a crazy rant and it pisses people off. That's more of a bonus than a main goal.

I don't understand most of what you wrote in response to my question. Can you try it again without the history lessons? I agree that women had it worse in the past. My offending blog post was about today and the future.

I think we can skip the question of whether I offended men, since that is not what is bothering Jezebel or Salon, just to name two. And most men correctly interpreted the post as saying that male sexual urges manifest differently in different men. The men who complained imagined I was saying all men are repressed rapists. That's a simple case of bad reading comprehension, or maybe it is because the post was carved up by bottom-feeding websites until the meaning was distorted to fit an agenda. At Huffington Post, where the average reading comprehension is high, you can see that most commenters can't understand how anyone would be offended by the post.

You say that the natural instincts of women can lead them to shameful and criminal behavior. I have a higher opinion of women than you do, in the sense that I think men are genetically more prone to bad behavior. If your point is that women suck just as much as men, I'll take your word for it. But you'll need to explain why our jails have so many more men than women.

I'm still confused why my blog is more offensive than what you just wrote. Can you try again, in simpler terms, and without the history lesson, to explain your objection to my post?

Irin: Not sure what's left to say if all you can say about my good-faith critique of your piece boils down to TL;DR. (Sorry, "Phew, wordy.") Surely a "certified genius" such as yourself knows how to read English when strung together in three paragraphs.

But I'll boil it down anyway. Feminism is not about women being better than men. It's about creating a world where gender and sexuality don't stand in the way of each of us pursuing our individual rights, including to autonomy over our own bodies, whether that means who we have sex with, how many children we have, if at all, or what jobs we have. This might be a "history lesson," but for thousands of years, that hasn't been the case. Men ran things for most of that time, and by and large they still do; feminists and allies happen to believe that full participation will be better for everyone. Unfortunately, the transition is still incomplete, including on your blog, but we'll keep at it nonetheless.  

Scott:
If that's your point, we're in full agreement. I'll leave it to my readers to decide if the bottom line is you're unwilling or unable to defend what another writer on Jezebel has written on this topic. You simply explained some history and made some generic points about equality.

My readers should know that I requested this interview with Lane Moore, the Jezebel.com writer who characterized my opinion, with manufactured quotes, as "All men are rapists." That is the ridiculous view I was expecting your employer to defend. I assume that in preparation for this interview you reread my blog and realized there is no defense for Jezebel's position, and so you smartly retreated into history lessons and generic statements about the goodness of equality.

To be fair, you were assigned this interview by your boss. It's clear to me that you're too smart, and probably too ethical, to defend Jezebel.com's grotesque interpretation of my writing.

So we'll end here, and I'll take this up with Salon's writer, MaryElizabeth Williams, assuming her offer still stands. Stay tuned.

[Update: Jezebel.com is linking to this post. That's why the voting changed direction so abruptly.]
 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  -578
  • Print
  • Share

Comments

Sort By:
Jun 28, 2011
personally i find it outright hilarious that jezebel readers come here to flame, and that they read a magazine named jezebel.

jezebel was a manipulative, bloodthirsty !$%*! queen from the bible.
 
 
Jun 26, 2011
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
In response to Scott's claim "society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable." which is the most contentious claim, she has given 0 arguments, accept to say that she'd wager it is not true.
 
 
Jun 23, 2011
Also, to the people trying to browbeat annoyed feminists into behaving more decorously: !$%* off.

Actual allies will understand that the anger women express about the restrictions society places on us is genuine and important. Fake allies will pretend that enemies can be won over if only we just act nice and sweet instead of pissed off. In other words, if we continue to try to fit ourselves into society's square pegs or whatever your metaphor of choice is, then people will listen to us talk about the problem of these differently shaped pegs and holes. In reality, it has never worked out that way. Asking politely for full human rights never worked. We always had to fight for our rights.

If you're not interested in helping, then shut up and get out of the way.
 
 
Jun 23, 2011
Everyone has been wondering whether Scott Adams really believes the crap he writes, or if he's just trolling. With this phrase,

<i>"I stake out positions that I haven't seen - whether I believe everything I write or not - because unique viewpoints interest me most."</i>

Adams reveals that he is, in fact, just a giant troll.

Screw you, man. I'm not interested in reading fake opinions just because you think they will provoke people. There's plenty of REAL stuff happening in the REAL world that is horribly provoking. I'm interested in reading your actual opinions. But it sounds like you're too much of a jerk, or possibly a coward, to bother sharing them with the world, despite your enormous platform.

I never did like Dilbert much anyway. Ugh.
 
 
Jun 23, 2011
Also just totally realized the herd behavior of the people viciously downvoting sensible commentary is another example of the pitchforks-and-fire-esque groupthink I was outlining in my response.
 
 
Jun 23, 2011
@mariabigotes1 - And thank you for your thoughtful responses.

1. Society is an idea. It's seperate in a philosophical sense, like other ideas that humans have conceived of and ocassionally act upon but is physically inseperable as it does not manifest in the world without human beings. I don't believe that it's necessary for any human to undergo any evolutionary change to accept new ideas or to build on old ones. Like I said, physiologically we are not different creatures. We have the same capabilities, we just express them differently. If I teach an elephant to paint have I forced an evolutionary change on their species? If I teach a gorilla sign language have I moved us all closer towards a world alike the "Planet of the Apes" movies? Most importantly, if I have a child and leave them absent of all human interaction and with no access to any of the information that we have built up, does that lack of interaction with the current base of society make my own offspring a less evolved creature than me?

All of that said, society IS an entity that humans have little control over. Society is, at its core form, the mob and it's been well documented that human psychology among the mob (or any situation where there are others to shoulder moral and philosophical burdens of group action or inaction) differs greatly from individual psychology. People may express views that differ from their community but act in unison with their community in such a way that would cause one to infer that they share the same values on the matter in question. It doesn't take much to get pitchforks and fire into people's hands, so to speak. Society is not a group project that everyone actively takes a part in keeping in mind their responsibilities to the entire future of our species. Society is the result of the interactions of the herd. Every once in a while you'll find a handful of people with the specific intent to change society or guide society but most people are just living paycheck to paycheck and I mean that both in the financial and psychological sense.


2. I'm not sure the data supports that position. Name one instance, aside from the news that both genders go to for information and not for artificial interaction, of males having the same sort of interaction with a television show (talk show) as women have had with Oprah and other shows of that level. I think that to say that men and women are equal in their interpersonal communications is to completely discount the effect that brain masculinization in the womb has on the outlook and behavior of my gender. That's much like saying that women are as predisposed towards tacticianship as men are, which simply isn't the case with the one exception of the expression of it in social settings. I think that that proclivity plays a factor in male interpersonal communication. In any event, the point of the example which I believe still stands is Who is more important, a leader who is only a figurehead but technically holds the authority to enact political and legal change or the council that makes all of their decisions for them? The answer is the council. I'm saying that all of the important social interactions (the quantitative and qualitative bulk) are between women and women, and men and women. Even if the end result is that a man is speaking, that speech is the net result of the churning froth of conversation that was had in the background, even if it was bottlenecked into that person by only one person like their wife or their mother. As long as the ideas originate from the spontaneous interactions in the social ether, it doesn't matter who says it.

Perhaps we aren't going to agree because I more frequently hear talk from men that have been manipulated by women and women that intend to manipulate or currently are manipulating men. I'd like to take this moment to note that when men do this it's generally viewed as amoral but women doing it is generally accepted as the status quo from both sides. An older man chasing after a younger woman is a predator or a degenerate. An older woman doing the same gets her own commercial and website (if you've never heard the commercial for cougarlife, google it). A girl that breaks a young boys heart is confused, misguided and unintentionally hurtful. A boy that breaks a young girl's heart is malicious, stupid, and lacking in grace.


I think we should just put this whole thread to bed by starting the largest case study on the subject ever attempted and get the data we need to declare someone absolutely correct and someone else absolutely incorrect. I hate settling on issues when an answer is available.


On a somewhat related note, take a look at your votes and mine. I got the imrpession from the wording of your retort that you didn't entirely disagree with much of what I posted in my original response to you and yet I'm in the negatives, yet your response which broaches only a part o the topic on whole is championed. If this isn't the power of female conversation in action, I'm not sure what is.
 
 
-75 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 22, 2011
uhm, sorry ms. Irin, but I think, when you say that, historically, women was repressed when trying to live their life the way they just want to, while men was ruling the world, you are confirming that, when men are winning, women are losing. i think it's common sense that men's major instinct (course, not including feed and sleep) it's sex instincts, and, unless you're all have been exceptionally well trained, it's not women's major instinct. that's the funny purpose of adam's post.
 
 
-55 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 22, 2011
I still think Scott was correct and he is proposing an interesting and unique view that is a caricature of reality and not reality itself. To me, most missed the point, including Irin.

By the way, as a middle-aged male I am honestly willing to admit that sex is the first thing that crosses my mind every time I see a women older than my daughter and younger than my mother. The second thought is the one that matters and the one I have learned from my mother/father to act on.
 
 
Jun 22, 2011
@Blooregard

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I will say though that I find some problems:
1. If humans haven't evolved but society has, what does that say about society? Are you implying that "society" is a separate entity that humans have little control over? Unless you're going to invoke a religious argument, societies are created and perpetuated by humans. Therefore, if societies have evolved, humans have also evolved. Also, the values that humans in a society hold above others are very important as people will almost always attempt to take the path of least resistance. I'm not talking about music taste and fashion, I mean core beliefs and values about sex, gender, matrimony, and so on.

2. Also I think I was unclear with the pegs and holes thing. I understand that the peg is not necessarily a phallic symbol that is penetrating the hole, lol. I meant that the holes are feminine traits, feminine values, the pegs being male traits and male values. Also, women and men are pretty equal in their amount of interpersonal interaction (see the book Language Myths), so society is not skewed to the female point of view because women talk more. Also, even if they were to have more intimate conversations in the private sphere (which they really don't), it would still matter that men's talk is deemed more important in our society.
I actually work with all men (I'm a cook at a restaurant while I attend grad school) so I hear a lot about how women have the upper hand in society because they are manipulative and with hold sex from men and so on. I always kindly remind them that they're just thinking of personal relationships, not society as a hole. In truth women have the same complaints about men.

I didn't log on to this site to bash men or to promote the matriarchy lol, just to clarify why feminists disagree with Scott Adams. We're probably not going to reach a truce, especially since this involves the whole nature-nurture debate, but I at least wanted to offer an alternate point of view.
 
 
-30 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 22, 2011
2 Thoughts:

1) Irin didn't say anything to defend the position here. She gave us some history lesson. She complained about Scott's use of word 'lost' for Hugh Hefner. Then she talked about need for equality of women.

2) In response to Scott's claim "society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable." which is the most contentious claim, she has given 0 arguments, accept to say that she'd wager it is not true.


 
 
Jun 22, 2011
I hate Jezebel, and have been banned for trolling it under 3 different commenter IDs. So it's very sad for Scott Adams that Jezebel comes off about 3x smarter than him in this interview.
 
 
-95 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 22, 2011
<i>Men ran things for most of that time, and by and large they still do; feminists and allies happen to believe that full participation will be better for everyone. Unfortunately, the transition is still incomplete, including on your blog, but we'll keep at it nonetheless.</i>

I beg to differ. Full equality was reached about 1970. Now the pendulum has swung way past, to the point where laws like VAWA give any woman the power to destroy a guy's life for no cause, just by making a false accusation (no more due process). That's not liberation, it's a reign of terror comparable to the Law of 22 Prairial.
 
 
Jun 22, 2011
@ShawShaw- That's actually the problem I was posing to you. I'm not sure that in this post-disney era that those amounts are going to be even remotely equivalent. They'll exist but will they live? I see a lot of crazy old cat ladies in the future.
 
 
Jun 22, 2011
@mariabigotes1- Not to jump on a bandwagon but I see the last commentor to respond to you didn't quite cover all of the points I see worthy of reply in your sentiments, so I will. If it overlaps, I apolagize but I find it difficult to look at two seperate parts of a thread simultaneously while typing my repsonse in notepad.

1. I don't think it's tricky to talk about the natural instincts of humans, or rather, I don't think it's tricky to talk about them insofar as they provide the core basis for motivations for our entire species which have been noted by psychologists for centuries. The problem with denying biological determinism is that it undermines efforts to attain a complete understanding of humanity. As creatures we have not evolved since the inception of society. This isn't an opinion or a randomly floating thought but rather a fact. We have acclimated to societal changes (changes in height due to diet and stress levels, psychological changes) but on a physiological level we are absolutely no different then when we were nomadic tribes. In fact, careful inspection of the landscape of the human condition worldwide reveals that some of us STILL live like that. I think a great starting point in determining what the human instincts are is observation fo the statistics. For most, if not all, of documented history there are certain.. I supposed you could call them behavioral tropes that have crossed cultural, geographic, language and temporal barriers. They include things that are both abhorrent and things that are valued in our society (which I'll get back to in a second) such as violence, sex, rape, community and a tendency towards ritualistic behavior which I believes falls under that, and power hierarchies. I think that if something appears often enough and throughout enough conditions that it is reasonable to take into consideration the concept that it is a natural part of the human continuum of behavior and should be treated as such. Coming back to our society's values, they're arbitrary. Every society that has ever lived has had the attitude of a teenager defiantly striking it on their own in the world. If they bother to take note of the values held by other societies in the past at all, then they regard them as a less advanced or less correct way of thinking about things (until such time that that society reaches the same conclusions if they ever do). Everyone who is on the 'cutting edge' of morality views themselves as right absolutely. That alone is not enough to condemn an action, such as rape, but we can revisit that later. We have environments that do not encourage violence and where violence still seems to emerge rather regularly. In fact there's a shadow acknowledgement of this in that we have a myriad of contact sports that mostly males entertain to express urges towards violence in more acceptable ways. Ask guys that play soccer, play football, that box, that are into martial arts why they do it and we'll see how many of them do it to solely to stay in shape or socialize lol.

I wouldn't say only narcissists tweet but okay.


2. As with the other comments replying to this, I disagree with your misuse of the analogy in comparing it to anatomy. I think that this "it's a man's world" mantra that people are insistent on chanting is non-analytical groupthink. We aren't too far removed from the days when beating your wife was acceptable but wherein has there ever been any discussion on the matter of wives that beat their husbands? check out the statistics on domestic abuse by gender. Anyway, I think that simply saying that because men were the figureheads behind all of the major decisions over the past few millenia that they were the sole driving force behind society is such lazy thinking. First of all, history clearly shows that many great leaders, the people that shaped policy, morality, culture, sought the council of women to aid in their decision making, including almost all of our presidents. Secondly, I don't think it follows that men have been the sole driving forces behind society when by definition society is run and altered by the interaction of many people in a myriad of directions. The fact of the matter is that historically women have been more prone to socializing with a greater number of people and with greater frequency and depth then men have. Men have, especially in this country, been forced into a gender role that does not encourage full and robust communication and sharing with members of the same sex. For example, up until recently the easiest way to get a best seller in the US was to get it into Oprah's book club. I doubt that there are many men sitting at home in the middle of the day watching Oprah AND simultaneously giving a damn what she has to say, or at the very least there aren't many doing so with any measure of consistency. That show, like the view, is a form of conversation. It's interpersonal communication of the same sort that women generally entertain in but on a larger scale, a larger conversation. Note the impact that that conversation has had. I would argue that the impact that shows like that have is only a more dramatic expression of the same principles I'm discussing. Basically, men made the decisions but under the watchful eyes of wives whom they depended on for food, sex, and comfort at home. A happy wife is a happy home. An unhappy wife is an unhappy home, unless you're a manipulative wife beater in which case a happy you makes for a happy home. =)

Also, I don't know if you've ever had cause to notice but it's incredibly easy for women to wind men around their fingers and use them as they wish. Men are, by and large, weak and gullible creatures for a pretty smile and a nice body. Some part of me thinks that early on men decided that they didn't want to be taken advantage of and turned the tide on potential matriarchy (probably sometime after hunter-gatherer when we were still the driving force behidn survival and during agriculture when both sexes worked the fields the same). The question I have about the men in power is what precisely they have power over? Consider the scope of the power that these men have before making sweeping generalizations about their effect on society. Bill Gates, for example, does not have the power to get millions of copies of any book he endorses sold nearly instantly. as far as social constructs are concerned I'm pretty sure that's something like not powerful at all.
 
 
Jun 22, 2011
Did I say a regular reaer wouldn't know that? I meant non-regular.

This wine is really good, you guys.
 
 
Jun 22, 2011
@Blooregard

When I said, "Not that Scott was misquoted," I meant he actually wasn't. And yes, I agree on the thought experiment thing. He does those quite a bit here; often ones that run contrary to Scott's opinions. A regular reader wouldn't know that. That's the context problem I'm seeing.

And yes. I do know exactly what I'm suggesting. People who actually want committment will get it. Those who don't, won't. This assumes there are individuals in roughly equal amounts for each group that wants something different, though. Still better to be single than be in a dishonest relationship that could end in an expensive PR disaster/divorce. And the princess thing? Bah. Having to take the time to find someone interested in monogomy instead of settling for someone pretending to want something they don't isn't so bad. They'll live.
 
 
Jun 22, 2011
@ShawShaw- No, Scott wasn't misquoted and no, the interpretation has little to do with his readership. I just joined as I think the exchange has become too juicy to pass up and even I see what's wrong with the interaction present. If you go back to the article on Jezebel, Lane Moore quoted 2 paragraphs from the blog Scott Adams wrote. She then did a lateral thinking jump that was completely irrelevant to what the quote she posed actually said. It went something like "Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world." --> "Wow. Trying to make it sound like your argument falls under the category of 'gender theory' while saying that 'boys' are pretty much designed ot be rapists and we'd better get used it is...I don't even know what it is anymore."

See what's wrong with that? Substitute the title of any other subset of men and look how quickly such a jump in thinking becomes. Replace "powerful" with "black" or "short" or bald" or "Brazilian" and observe how ridiculous the jump from a subset to "all" is.

As far as the joking nature of it is concerned, I think it was intended to be a thought experiment first and foremost, with the ensuing flame war by the feminazis composing most of the "joke" portion. Taking it back to the original section quoted by the Jezebel writer, I agree with Scott. Powerful people abuse their power and often in ways that trample on the rights of others, be they spouses or not. I think that taking a moment to consider why he chose them as an example provides illumination towards the rest of the exercise. Why would people who are less fettered by the regular social and legal constraints of society seemingly more prone to this type of behavior? I think the answer is pretty easy. It's been said that money and power do not change people but are amplifiers. I think that these instincts are innate to at least some population of males and is just more easily expressed when there are less social forces acting upon them. Likewise, while I agree with the honesty bit, I'm nto sure you understand what you're suggesting. You're suggesting an "every dog for themselves" scenario and while that is great for men (and I do mean great) that leaves all of the women, who have been brainwashed by disney into believing themselves princesses, floating in the wind with lovers and non-committal companions. This is sort of a no-win situation.

Let the flaming commence.
 
 
+12 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 22, 2011
Another Jezebel reader here.

I understand the context problem. It's not that Scott was misquoted. Outside of the context of this blog with his regular readers, I think a lot of this can be misconstrued. It's like the difference between telling a really tasteless joke to someone who knows you well vs. someone you've never met before. In the first case, the friend will find it funny because they know you're not actually racist/sexist/whatever, whereas a complete stranger will probably be quite offended.

That said, I still disagree with the idea that this specific kind of unhappiness is due to societal pressure and differences between genders. Bottom line: man or woman, you'll be happy if you're honest about what you want. Don't want to sleep with exclusively the same person for the rest of your life? Don't get married, or find someone into open relationships. Seriously. Be up-front about what you want, and the rest will fall into place.
 
 
Jun 22, 2011
Mariobigotes1

Thank you for taking the time to write out a rational post with fairly rational criticisms. I hope you don't mind if I try to make a rational response to you here.

1) While Scott often writes in hyperbole, would you argue that men are often have to repress certain urges in order to fit into society? I am not trying to suggest that this is a bad thing. If everybody said everything that is on their mind and did everything that they ever had the urge to do, society would inevitably take a giant leap backwards. It is our ability to filter that makes civilized society possible and several studies in psychology have shown that people with the greatest self-monitoring skills earn the most money, have the most success, and get offered the most promotions. They also make life easier on those around them. Guys make active efforts to not look at girls breasts. Guys often have a hard time keeping it in their pants even if they are married. Guys have more testosterone, and too much of this can be connected to violence, including, in extreme cases, rape.

While nobody in their right mind would completely exclude the environmental factors in behaviour, it would be equally wrong to ignore the genetic factors. There is a trend in psychological literature to attribute more and more behaviour to genetics and not environment, but I suspect that the nature vs. nurture debate will always have valid points on both sides. Now, while I suspect that women have to self-sensor quite a bit too (and probably just as much as men), it is not a stretch to say that, when men don't self sensor, many acts are criminal (verbal sexual harassment, bar fights, etc) while women have to make unfair and painstaking efforts to be taken seriously by even their less qualified male peers, but, by at least one definition, they don't have to make as big an effort to fit within the norms of society.

2) It was a poor choice of analogy, but if you read his post, he never even insinuates that the pegs are penises and the holes are vaginas. He simply used the most common analogy in the english language for a group of people not fitting in. The analogy wouldn't even make sense in the context of his blog the way you suggest it, since "hole" refers to society, not women. That seems pretty clear if you read it.

As for the rest of the stuff about women having it worse in modern society, there is not an educated, intelligent person alive today who would disagree. Scott never suggested that and, I would pretty shocked if he ever does (I've been reading him for quite some time).
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 22, 2011
Hey Scott,
I just discovered that I can vote for my own posts again. I really would like to get the most negative votes in this case and mistakenly gave myself a positive vote.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog