Sunday, 27 March 2011

Equal rights and candies

Working in an corporate company means, among many other things, that I enjoy reading Dilbert strips: the stupidity of the life I lead for a third of my day is just all there.
That's where my involvement with Dilbert and its creator, Scott Adams, ends: I know he's got a blog but I never bothered reading it.
Now, in the past few days, my feed reader has gone up a little bit with reference to Scott Adams, but I didn't read any post until this morning.

So, here's the short version of the story: in his blog Scott Adams asked his reader to suggest a topic and he would write about it: the topic chosen was the cause of men's rights activist.
He wrote the post and then deleted it. Miracle of RSS feed and cache, it was re-published on this blog.

What he says is that men suffer of many social injustices compared to women: men have to pay more car ensurance than women and have to hold the door of restaurants open. Ok, ok, women got paid less than men, but that's because they can't negotiate their salaries and, after all, they have a higher life expectancy (thus enabling them to work more years and level the salary discrepancy, I wonder?).
And anyway, women demanding equal pay are as unreasonable as children asking for candy.
To him, it's nothing but the petty request of an irrational group of people, the women. And what men should do about all these evident inequities? Very simple according to what his post states:

"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.

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.
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."

The post ends with this words:
"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."

I read the post four times, but couldn't really make up my mind... could it be because I belong to an irrational group of people?
Since the post was not written by Bill Whatever, but by Scott Adams, world famous cartonist, it was only a matter of time before the reactions to the post started to appear.

What did Scott Adams do then? Well, I guess he followed the strategy he stated at the end of the post. Equal rights probably fall in that 90% slot of the world he doesn't care about. So why bothering trying to better explain his mind and defend his point of view? As any real man should do, he sucked it up and deleted the post. Don't dish out anything you can't take, right Scott?

I read the post four times, and still can't understand what he really meant to say. I need writings to follow a logic path in order to understand them, call it a major fault in my intellectual abilities.
It's not a question of whether men or women are to feel most offended by the deleted post: I think any intelligent, sensible human being will feel somehow annoyed and offended by such a unorganized display of cliches.

When I read or hear people reasoning like that, I just feel like saying: "Oh, f**k, not another one again!". My shoulders and head slump down, it's just tiresome, you see?
There's no point in discussing further more the post he wrote. As the famous quote states, one should never argue with stupid people, as they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
And at the end, what really annoys me it's not the blatant sexism, but this acceptance of the situation as it is: what the post says to me, it's that yes things are shit but there's no point in trying to improve them.
Acceptance is the key: duck, you sucker! 
Don't bother trying, don't bother fighting and don't care about the world around you, as it's not relevant to you, 90% of the time at least.
Get wasted on the weekend, work during the week, keep your head low and if you're lucky you might be able to get something out of your cowardy.
I look outside my window, to the world and think that, if we truly think as Scott Adams suggests we do, then we same wise deserve to live the way we do, and we deserve no better world.
But if I look inside me, I think about my friends, no matter they're men or women, I do believe they deserve something better than a Dilbert's word. And so do I.

No comments:

Post a Comment