Adams starts by talking about what his readers have told him the problem is:
"...examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women. You might add to this list the entire area of manners. 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.
How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don't think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said."
Here is a thing of which you are evidently not aware, Scott Adams-"feminism" as a whole is not about reversing existing inequity and putting women in the place that men have been in for pretty much all of human history, which is to say being the Grand High Poobah Dictators For Life. It is, in fact, about ensuring true equality for all people, rather than the currently pervasive attitude of "Look, you can vote and have a job! Now please stop bothering us and go put on some lipstick!" But since you have such overwhelming evidence that we lady types are trying to take over the world and repress you with our lady parts, let's discuss this point by point.
"...many elements of the legal system"
Which elements might those be? It would help this conversation if you would be more specific. Just for the sake of covering all bases, though, I'll assume that you're at least partially referring to the Father's Rights Movement and other groups who are insisting that men are being unfairly denied custody of their children and falsely accused of certain types of crime, specifically domestic and sexual violence. Those seem to be the most common points raised by Men's Rights Activists (MRAs).
First, it is estimated that 95% of divorces in the United States and upwards of 81% of divorces in Canada are uncontested, meaning that all property and custodial issues have either been resolved by the involved parties, or the conditions submitted to the court in the original filing are agreed to without argument by the party being served. Of the remaining cases, 25 to 50% involve some kind of abuse. And for those who claim that mothers are making false allegations in order to intentionally and unreasonably deprive fathers of custodial or visitation rights, it's useful to note that studies on the subject have shown the majority of abuse allegations in divorce proceedings to be true, with a tiny percentage (less than 2% in one Australian study) believed to be intentionally misleading or false. And of intentionally false allegations in one study, 1.3% were initiated by the woman, while 21% were initiated by the man. Precise statistics vary globally, but remain in similar ranges and consistently show the same thing: the majority of abuse allegations are true. Of false allegations, the majority are based on reasonable belief of their legitimacy. A small percentage are blatantly false, and those are more likely to be brought by men than by women. Considering the material and emotional expense involved with extended divorce proceedings and defending oneself from such allegations, as well as the fact that manipulating and controlling financial matters is a kind of abuse, it makes sense that false child abuse allegations in order to further one's own cause or simply make things more difficult for a former spouse would be an appealing tactic for an abuser.
None of this is meant to denigrate fathers or men in general. There are certainly people of all genders, on all sides of these arguments doing reprehensible things, and I do not believe that men are naturally more inclined to perpretrate violence than are women. I believe that these statistics reflect learned behaviour and social trends, but we still must face their reality.
As an extension of this argument, consider the many cases that can be found with a simple web search where a parent previously accused of abuse has then kidnapped, severely harmed or killed either the children or the other parent during or shortly after a custody battle. Abuse allegations must be taken seriously in all cases, following the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" but still taking precautions to protect potential victims. Yes, there is a risk of false allegations being found to be truthful, but frankly I believe that the risks to the lives of the partner or children of an abuser who is not investigated outweigh the risk of someone being falsely imprisoned. Convictions can be appealed and overturned; murder cannot.
In cases where primary custody is awarded to the mother without an extended battle, it is frequently due to the fact that she has been the one performing the majority of parental duties. Status quo is a significant determinant in custody disputes where there are no exceptional circumstances. Most judges see no reason to greatly disrupt a child's life by forcing them to live with the parent who has not been their primary caregiver.
As for the argument about the prevalence of false rape allegations, I will simply refer you to RAINN for statistics on the reporting and prosecution of rape, as well as this analysis of a study performed about false allegations.
"...the military draft in some cases"
And this is the fault of women how? Remember, Mr. Adams, it was men who made these laws. But ok, I'll bite.
Besides the fact that a large part of feminist thought is also in line with a pacifist philosophy, wherein the draft is regarded as a bad thing all around, this is an example of patriarchal ideas being damaging to men, too. An all-male military draft is based upon an ideal of women as purely "nurturing" beings who are inherently weaker than men. This is an idea against which feminists actively fight. Additionally, the Universal National Service Act would require compulsory service for men and women in the US. And let's not forget that when the draft ended and all-volunteer service began, the percentage of women in the US military went up considerably. Women do not, by and large, see exclusion from military draft and combat positions as a "privilege." It is a remnant of a paternalistic, condescending ideology, and many women want to see that gone.
"...the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men"
This has nothing to do with "rights." In fact, it may well be another function of patriarchal ideals and expectations damaging men. Men frequently engage in more risky behaviours, for one thing. In a society that polices behaviour with phrases like "man up" or "take it like a man," or even "don't be a pussy," is it surprising that men are raised feeling obligated to engage at a higher rate with things that are likely to kill them?
First, the roots of circumcision come in large part from the dictates of a male god and patriarchal religion. Also, feminists want to stop routine male circumcision.
"...the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women."
These agencies exist primarily as a means of beginning to rectify the historical injustices against women. When you consider how much of human history consisted of all male government and voting bodies, a government department existing to help half the population "catch up" and be treated as equals doesn't seem so ridiculous.
"We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants."
Do we? You'll have to clarify for me: by "we" do you mean "everyone in the whole world ever," or do you mean "those of us who support archaic gender roles based on the frailty of women and the assumption that all (or at least most) women are whiny princesses who expect constant service?" Because I open my own damn doors, I hold doors open for people behind me regardless of their gender, and I expect that whoever's plate is most convenient to set down first will be served in a restaurant. "Chivalry" is a system in which women are assumed to be inherently weaker than and dependent upon men. Politeness is one thing, treating women like children is another.
"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."
Gender essentialist, evo-psych, "women aren't funny" bullshit that I don't even have the patience to respond to. Next?
"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."
I have exciting news for you! A number of sources are treating this as a national emergency! Don't you feel better knowing that?
Oh, wait, your point wasn't that people aren't panicking enough? Your point was that average college populations in the US are now about 57% female? Huh. Well, would it help to know that at your nation's top rated colleges, the student body is anywhere between 51 and 65% male? Honestly, I don't know what to say to this. Are colleges supposed to be fully fifty-fifty with regard to gender division? There are issues in the academic system to consider, yes. But believers in the "boy crisis" have created a false dichotomy where for women to succeed academically, men must fail, and that's just not the case.
"How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don't think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said."
You don't think so? Well I think you're wrong. In any system where something such as insurance rates are based on statistical averages, certain people will necessarily be unfairly lumped in with their demographic group. That's a broken system, not large-scale discrimination against men. Where I live, we have government auto insurance where the cost is determined by the type of vehicle you drive and your personal driving record. Most Americans would never agree to such a system, because it has its grounding in socialist ideals, which we all know are bad, right? Capitalism is the way of the future! Oh, except for the part where you have issues like this one, with statistical averages used to calculate your insurance costs.
After a couple of paragraphs where he pays lip service to the existence of pay inequity but then brushes it off with typical privileged tripe about women "opting out," Adams has this to say:
"Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men's rights:I SEE WUT U DID THAR. Clever, Scott Adams, clever indeed. Use a term for female genitalia as an insult to men who are complaining about women being treated better than they are. Because we all know that a pussy is the worst thing in the world, right? These men should man up and start acting like dicks instead of pussies. That's what you were going for, right?
Get over it, you bunch of pussies."
In any case, what follows is truly the most amazing piece of writing ever to flow forth from the clearly superior brain of a man, advice for the ages on just what we are to do about the scourge of bitches thinking they're people and shit:
"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."
That's right, folks. Ableism, sexism and, we might argue, a touch of ageism all in one brilliantly crafted paragraph. Let's take a moment to
Are we ready for more? Do you think you can handle further brilliance?
"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."
OH MY GOD YOU GUYS this is genius. It's all so simple! Let the bitches whine and then you can put your dick in them! If you argue with them, they may not let you fuck them! I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING NOW.
In case you haven't noticed, it gets more difficult to remain reasonably coherent the further you read into this article. Not helping that is the fact that reading it over more than once in order to effectively rebut it necessitates large amounts of alcohol to keep the rage at bay.
"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."
Or you could do something crazy like talk to adult women as though they are adult humans. I KNOW IT IS INSANE. Me with my radical ideas.
Seriously, at this point there's no reason for me to even have to continue rationally arguing my point. Scott Adams is saying that men should placate women, with their silly demands for equality that are equivalent to a child wanting to eat enough candy to make themselves sick. He is saying that adult men are to adult women what mental health caregivers are to their patients who may lash out for various reasons and hurt people around them. This is disgusting and unacceptable.
Adams took this post down fairly quickly once the backlash started. Links to it now go to this:
"I deleted today's post. My regular readers have the capacity to deal with this sort of topic but it gained a bit too much attention from outside my normal reading circle.
Knowledge is a dangerous thing."
That's right. People who find this offensive and disgusting when read on the public blog of a syndicated cartoonist with a huge readership just lack the "capacity to deal with this sort of topic." Too much knowledge has just addled the brains of the silly women and our allies.
I suppose it's for the best that this came out...now that we know what the creator of Dilbert really thinks of us, we don't have to strain our pretty little heads trying to read it.