Incredibly Interesting Authors 001: Dilbert creator Scott Adams




I read Scott in the hope of rising from douchebag to loveable douchebag.

I saw this Woody Allen documentary the other day where he explained what a douchebag actually is. They used to have these rubber contraptions that you would hang off the shower rail. The great thing about it was that he obviously had no idea that it had become a slang term.


Ahhhh Scott Adams world class Asshat,

This Pharyngula link has some greatest hits attached.


Dilbert creator outed for using sock puppets on Metafilter and Reddit to talk himself up


Not only is Scott Adams not interesting to me because he believes in the whole "men don't have rights because women took them all" myth, but also because he's just not that funny.
I don't think I've actually laughed at a Dilbert strip in the last 10 years...


Ya, he is a gem alright:

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 ... 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.


Scott Adams: Sometimes dumber than Dilbert’s boss.

So Scott Adams — the Dilbert guy — has a blog. About a week and a half ago he made the mistake of asking his readers to give him a topic to write about. Well, some MRAs heard about this, and, being MRAs, decided that they would flood his site with comments urging him to write about Men’s Rights. And so he did.

What they got from him wasn’t quite what they hoped. Really, though, it wasn’t what anyone would have hoped. So much so that Adams decided to take his post down, saying that it had gotten “a bit too much attention from outside my normal reading circle.”

Luckily, through the voodoo of Google, we can still see the original post. Adams started out, depressingly enough, by more-or-less agreeing with MRAs on a wide assortment of their pet issues big and small  — from men paying more for car insurance to the alleged anti-male bias of the legal system.  Much of what he wrote made as little sense as many real MRA rants; even his little jokey asides fell completely flat.

We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?

Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.

Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.

After more or less agreeing that men are getting a raw deal, Adams dismissed the complaints of women upset that women earn less than men; to Adams, this is because they are naturally timid souls who don’t know how to ask for raises.

So far, so not-so-good. But then Adams pulled the old switcheroo on his MRA readers, who up until this point were presumably giddy with excitement.

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

Uh oh! Shaming tactic! MRAs love directing vagina-based insults at others — mangina anyone? — but they hate hate hate it when anyone directs a vagina-based insult at them. To be fair, calling someone a pussy is not much of an argument.

But here’s where Adams pulled a sort of double switcheroo. After insulting Men’s Rights activists, he did them one better with a bizarre, brazen misogynistic argument that seemed to have been cribbed from some of the more idiotic comments on the various MGTOW message boards.  It turned out that the reason Adams thinks men should “get over it” is that … well, read it for yourself.

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.

What what what?? This is the sort of shit you expect from some low-grade misogynist loser on The Spearhead.  But no, this is Scott Adams, internationally famous cartoonist and bestselling author. Instead of trying to explain just what the fuck he means by all this, Adams continued on with a very strange, and strangely sexual, chess metaphor:

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.

Apparently In Scott Adams’ world, chess players don’t get all their kicks above the waistline, Sunshine. 

After a few more paragraphs that, frankly, don’t make any more sense than what I’ve quoted so far, Adams seemed to realize that maybe he shouldn’t have really suggested that women were a bunch of retarded children. But instead of going back and removing that from his post, he dug himself further in with a weird and completely unconvincing denial:

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.

As far as I can figure out his weird and convoluted argument, it is this: The world really is unfair to men. But you’ll never win this argument with a women — you know how they are. So keep quiet and maybe … you’ll get to fuck the queen? 

No wonder he deleted the post. 

Completely off-topic observation: Every time I hear the name Dilbert, the song Dilbar Dil Se Pyare, from the 1971 Bollywood hit Caravan, gets stuck in my head. So let’s see if I can get it stuck in your head:

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.


Boingboing, and Mark, you've disappointed me. Supporting someone who is both anti-science and anti-woman is not a great move.


Yeah, they were marketed to women as a solution for "not feeling fresh down there' ", even though that area's generally pretty self-cleaning and douching can actually make a smell problem worse via throwing off the pH and letting stuff grow.

fittingly enough, this means BOTH kinds of douche are things which tend to create the problems they claim to solve.


Here's a link with other links therein that explains some of the um, issues with Scott Adams: Dilbert Creator's Misogynist Rants


Incredibly interesting =/= morally upstanding


Say what you will about Scott Adams, but he is one of the most expert trolls I've ever known. World class, even.

I don't agree with some of the things he says, but I cannot deny the expert way that he honks everyone's nose as he does it.


As good as Richard Dawkins?


Nah - Dawkins is like on a whole different plane of existence.


You make it sound like that's an admirable thing. Every online community I've ever been to shuns, loathes, and discourages people behaving that way.


That is true, but it is different when the person in question is independently famous.


It's not so great when you're the one being compared to children.


He wrote a book with a chapter in the back about "Affirmations". You write down something you want, like "I will become a nationally syndicated cartoonist", on a piece of paper, and the universe reads the piece of paper and makes it come true for you.

It worked for him, see, so that proves it.

Hence the other nonsense doesn't surprise me.


Huh - IIA sounds like an interesting series even if author #1 is a bust. Problem is I can't find it using Beyond Pod. I can find all the other BB podcasts though, maybe they haven't updated their list yet.

Anyone else have a recomended podcast app for android? Beyond Pod works decently but isn't the cat's pajamas.


This sort of reminds me of the way people physically attack soap opera stars for things their characters did in the show. You guys know that authors require readers, right, and they sometimes say things to get readers? So they won't starve? I don't know that that's the case here, but given that one of the complaints is that every time he tells certain stories he tells them differently, it sure seems like maybe some folks are having trouble with the concept of fiction.

Scott Adams has replied personally to every email I have ever sent him, and his replies have always been as polite and thoughtful as my emails required. (This is something I can also say of Cory Doctorow, incidentally.)

I'm thinking I'll continue to judge him based on my own pleasant interactions with the man, rather than by the interpretations others have put on the writings of a comic whose speciality is provocative fiction and black humour.


The people who have criticized Scott Adams in this thread aren't attacking him for things that Dogbert said in the context of a fictitious comic strip. They're criticizing Scott Adams for opinions he has publicly espoused in his own name.

Agree with him if you want, but when an author makes inflammatory comments in an editorial or an apparently non-satirical blog post he doesn't get to dodge criticism just because he also writes fiction.