Live data from Hacker News

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

tinysprout.tumblr.com

31–39 of 39 posts

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

#31

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 go…

Let me play Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps you're taking something with many shades of gray, and unjustly trying to flatten it into black and white.

...

>>>>"But the comments comparing women with mentally handicapped and children…"

He's not comparing women with children or the mentally handicapped. Or at least he isn't intending to. He's comparing strategies for relating to various groups of people. Many readers are misconstruing this.

Two pieces of context to keep in mind: 1. He writes in the same piece, "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." 2. He retracted this post and isn't standing by it. Probably because a large portion of his audience is pulling out a message he didn't intend to communicate, and doesn't really agree with.

>>>>"Well... That (ahem) stands for itself."

Maybe not to everyone. More than anything, I wonder what events in his life shaped this perspective.

Also, saying something "stands for itself" is a lame rhetorical device. You pass off the burden of making your argument to some other function. Instead of saying something's obvious, why not spell out your thoughts explicitly for those who don't jump to the same conclusions?

>>>>"That shit is just indefensible."

To say that any kind of speech is indefensible is a comment about yourself and your own morality, not about the speech itself. (I'm paraphrasing a quote by Steve Pavlina about whether a 45 lb dumbbell is 'heavy' or 'light'.)

Another idea, often raised by freedom of speech activists: Controversial speech is the only speech that needs to be defended. Nobody tries to suppress speech that everyone agrees with.

...

Again, that was Devil's Advocate. Just a few things to think about.

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

#32
I think the post is bull because by using the mentally handicapped and children as his comparison point he puts women on the same level . I understand that he's talking about strategies for dealing with the groups and not the groups themselves, but if he wanted to make his argument more nuanced and less chauvinistic I'm sure he could have found a different group to compare if his real point was "considering the emotional realities of other people" is the path of least resistance. Family for example, or perhaps foreign cultures. I still fundamentally disagree that men and women really see the world THAT differently, but at least its an argument where he isn't calling half of the planet mentally handicapped.

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

#33
post #18
post #3

Scott Adams chose to delete his post. For the blogger to repost it, IMHO, shows a lack of respect.

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

It looks to me like he may have deleted all of his blog, now.

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

#34
post #30
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way for a man to give up parental rights and also not pay child support. My understanding is a man can, in fact, give up parental rights and not pay child support. I know a man who did so (though I don't know all the details). As I understand it, he had a brief fling with a woman who was separated from her husband. The marriage was falling apart in part due to the fact that it had not resulted in a child.…

TheAmazingIdiot meant that there is no way for a man to unilaterally give up parental rights and also not pay child support. Assume, for instance, that there's no husband in the picture, and that the woman wishes to keep the child and would be happy to receive child support payments. Then the man has no option other than to pay child support. A woman cannot be forced into this situation, because she can abandon the c…

There is some truth to that. But from what I have read, after a divorce, a third of all men pay no child support, a third pay part of what they are supposed to pay, and only a third pay child support in full (in short, I think there is so much social pressure on men about this in part because men can and do walk away from parental responsibilities much more often and much more easily than women typically do). As a woman who really sees this issue quite differently, I don't imagine this is the right audience to share some of my views on the matter (especially with having thrown up last night and not slept enough yet).

Peace.

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

#37
post #25

Scott Adams' comments are consistent with my life experience. That is all

and i think that's what most people are afraid to admit.

Pretty much everything he said hits the nail on the head, and well opinion IS opinion isn't it? I don't think he stated anywhere that the entire world was wrong and had to think the way he does did he?

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

#39
Women and men are not equal and never will be, period, anyone disputing that is ignorant. There is no problem with treating two genders differently to a certain point. Scott Adam was right, but he was overwhelmed by the zealots and had no choice.

In my opinion: anything you write about this topic will offend an army of people, so just don't do it, there are too many zealots out there who can't stand people who have different opinions.

Post reply on HN