Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

I'd say this could fall under fair use... :)

Adams has a few good points about this. I'm not saying that it's completely right, but some ideas are.

1. In Family Court, the man is seen as the bad one. Unless the woman is a baby-eater or something disgusting, she will get custody, with the man getting every other weekend or some such. He will also be charged to pay up to half his income for the "child",. And there is usually little or no checks to make sure it goes to the child.

2. In terms of parental and mother rights: A woman has a multitude of techniques in which to evade or eliminate pregnancy. These techniques can include up to abortion (this is NOT an abortion debate). After the child is born, the woman can also leave the child(ren) at a multitude of safe "drop points" in which the child is considered abandoned without criminal charge. The man, has very little recourse over children, even up to the woman having birth. There is no way for a man to give up parental rights and also not pay child support. The woman can do this at any time.

3. Women's pay is not in parity with men's pay of an equal job with equal skills. This is correct. The "solution" to this is to lower men's pay to that of women. And in cases which the woman sues, (SCOTUS case http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/29/340479/-SCOTUS:-Wom...) the woman is still screwed. Not surprising from SCOTUS.

But the comments comparing women with mentally handicapped and children... Well... That (ahem) stands for itself. That shit is just indefensible.

His explanation:

http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/post_deleted

"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".

Looking at it rationally, there's two counter arguments he makes that can be considered. Women's rights activists arguing women earn 80 cents to the dollar and fewer women in top management.

I personally think the second argument is valid while the first argument isn't unless I see some objective evidence.

He could've refrained from the comparison with Children / mentally handicapped as it can lead you to wrong conclusions even on a forum like HN, but the rest of the argument isn't something that you get upset about.