Digging back through the archive of The Last Psychiatrist, I happened to read his take on Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, and the internet tizzy the cartoonist stirred up with his anti-feminist thoughts.
In short, the author of the blog believes that Scott Adams lies to himself that society is holding men down; rather, this is simply a projection that the cartoonist indulges in so that he doesn’t have to acknowledge that he isn’t Casanova.
So what is wrong with what Adams said? What argument might convince him that he is wrong, or at least help him release some of that anger?
Adams seems to be believe that men are naturally sexually aggressive, and women/society put limits on their natural impulses. This is what Jezebel got wrong: he doesn’t believe this. He wishes this.
And when he says society is a “prison” for men’s natural urges to penetrate random women like in caveman days, he is not really complaining about this prison. That’s what he wants. He wants it to be true that society is cockblocking him.
Because if that is true, then it isn’t his own inability to score chicks that’s limiting him. “I’d love to just walk up to some hot chick in a bar and just take her home and bang her,” he might think, “but society doesn’t let me.” Really? Dude, you need to switch bars.
The Last Psychiatrist (hereto forth referred to as TLP) also provides us with the criticism from some major outlets; here is the change.org response to Adams’ original post:
Scott Adams, has written a blog insinuating that the act of a man raping a woman is a natural instinct and that society is to blame for these things, not the man who committed the rape.
And here is the response from Jezebel:
Wow. Trying to make it sound like your argument falls under the category of “gender theory” while saying that “boys” are pretty much designed to be rapists and we’d better get used to it is…I don’t even know what it is anymore.
And here is an excerpt from the response from Salon:
[According to Adams] Left to their own devices, men apparently would just go about raping and pillaging all the livelong day, with occasional breaks for grilling and watching ESPN.
And finally, here is TLP’s response to the above quoted change.org response:
Which isn’t what he said, but, whatever. (Ed: emphasis added by me, for later discussion.)
The above comment from TLP stands as anecdotal evidence that the author relies on the very irony he criticizes in order to direct the narrative he is writing. And, as far as I can theorize, the author is falling into the very trap he recognizes with Scott Adams: believe in a narrative where people become actors acting out a role. In fact, the author makes this very point on his blog, and I quote (more or less): “Narcissists believe that people are a type, and that people categorized as that type act out a predictable role, always subservient to the narcissist’s role. They are bit parts to the main actor.”In the case of Scott Adams, the author of TLP has already typified Scott Adams: Adams believes he is a victim of society, TLP believes he is a narcissist protecting his ego.
But that is a digression into psychiatry which is not the direction of this blog post. What I want to focus on is why the author reverts his philosophy and virtues to “whatever.” This is an interesting point because “whatever” is a boldfaced admittance of submissiveness to someone else’s frame. Which is strange coming from a seemingly intelligent psychiatrist. To offer a similar, easy to understand analogy of a couple going out to eat:
girl- “We are going to eat at Chili’s.” (Girl takes frame, offers dominant direction, sets frame, expects compliance.)
boy- “Whatever.” (Boy responds thus, after disambiguity: “I will follow your lead to eat at Chili’s, but me taking direction from you is equivalent to me taking direction from anybody, in fact, the paperboy could say “We are going to eat at Chili’s” and I would listen to him just as validly as you.)
Here is the meat and potatoes of my blog post. TLP’s response was ‘whatever,’ what was he responding to?
If you notice the mainstream responses to Scott Adam’s post, they all curiously bring up the topic of rape, curious considering Adams’ didn’t broach the discussion. TLP responds “whatever.” All of the mainstream outlets took Scott Adams post and reframed it to be about rape. TLP has no idea how to respond to this. So ****why*** did the feminists flip to discussing rape?
Because bringing up rape is the exact can of worms that TLP feels too icky to address Bringing up rape is a can of worms no man wants to address, in public. So I will. Why is introducing rape so important to the mainstream response? Why did they introduce rape when it was not a part of Scott Adams’ point?
I offer you a hypothetical scenario:
If, after some strange cataclysm, all but one man died on earth, but all of the women survived, would that man rape a woman? Would he still try and seduce women, or just revert to grabbing them and having his way with them?
And with that, I open the can of worms.
Feminists try and divert the argument to rape, because women cannot think in abstract. In fact, a totalitarian society run by feminists would line up all innocent male citizens for the gallows, and ask them that simple hypothetical scenario. Answer ‘yes’, and you hang. Answer ‘no’, and you live. Because to someone who cannot think in abstract, any response to the hypothetical scenario is an indictment of where you personally stand on the issue. To a woman, you are guilty of everything they don’t agree with, that is, until you kiss their ass and prove the contrary. (Let me reassure the readers that at this blog, no feminist ass-kissing occurs. This is simply anecdotal evidence.)
Kind of scary, considering we live in a culture of innocence, until proven guilty.
If I am moving too fast for you, let me review.
If you 100% believe that society places limits on male sexuality, imagining a world without those limitations is men running around raping at will.
If you 100% believe that society places no limits on male sexuality, then you see the world as winners and losers, naturally, with weak nerds (a la Scott Adams) and uber sexy bad boys.
Notice that all of the (undoubtedly) female authors for Jezebel, Salon, change.org, etc. seem to have an innate belief that society places limitations on male sex.
In my anecdotal experience, women desperately rely on the limitations on male sex, because it allows them access to the male seed which is most sexy, through violence, coercion, etc. Your woman is telling you “I’m too tired” to limit your sexuality because she was too busy boffing me the night before. And here I thought that lying and language are social concepts. I kid.