Dilbert Guy Scott Adams: Why Won't Any Of These 'Women' Give Terrorists A Hug?

Women... whatcha gonna do?

How old is Yr Wonkette? We remember when Dilbert was still funny. While Scott Adams has been churning out the same old cubicle jokes for years, his real passion seems to have gone into blogging from an odious libertarian MRA perspective. Unfortunately, without the logical constraints of cartoon panels, his thinking goes in some very weird directions, like this post from last week in which he diagnoses where terrorism comes from. It's not about religion or politics or oil, he explains, but about access to another scarce resource: Women.

I wonder if the discussion of so-called radical Islam is disguising the fact that male-dominated societies are at war with female-dominated countries. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Islam doesn’t look so dangerous in countries where women can vote.

Yes, the United States is female-dominated. The evidence is everywhere. For one thing, there's the women voting. For another, there's the fact that women control men on dates, at least if you are in an instructional film from 1958:

When I go to dinner, I expect the server to take my date’s order first. I expect the server to deliver her meal first. I expect to pay the check. I expect to be the designated driver, or at least manage the transportation for the evening. And on the way out, I will hold the door for her, then open the door to the car.

Adams later clarifies that he doesn't actually go on dates, at which point one's "no shit" reflex kicks in. Then there's the part of real human interaction the instructional films don't dare mention:

When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman. If the woman has additional preferences in terms of temperature, beverages, and whatnot, the man generally complies. If I fall in love and want to propose, I am expected to do so on my knees, to set the tone for the rest of the marriage.

Adams uses that "access to sex" line a lot, which makes sense for a libertarian worldview in which every human interaction, even sex, is a business transaction. For Adams, pussy is a scarce resource to which men need access, and over which women have all the control. This is what makes the United States a "matriarchy," Adams explains, although perhaps he hasn't checked the gender distribution in Congress or in corporate boardrooms. Forget political or economic power: If women get to say when men may or may not access their vaginas, then clearly they're the ones in charge. Despite the clear injustice of having to find a woman who will consent to sex, Adams does at least see one beneficial side effect to all this. It somehow keeps men in Western, feminized societies from becoming terrorists.

Now compare our matriarchy (that we pretend is a patriarchy) with the situation in DAESH-held territory. That’s what a male-dominated society looks like. It isn’t pretty. The top-ranked men have multiple wives and the low-ranked men either have no access to women, or they have sex with captured slaves [...]

So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn’t religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I’m not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.

[contextly_sidebar id="fPX0784KkYB9wsNrGQe9xGL3nXC8WKi3"]We haven't learned a goddamned thing about terrorism here, but Adams has at least given us a frightening sample of the kind of thinking that motivated the creepy MRA boy who killed six people in Isla Vista, California, in 2014. He needed access to sex, he didn't get it, so people had to die.

Adams has some other thoughts about Syria that are completely wrong, like the notion that most of the refugees applying to come to the U.S. are men of fighting age ( not so ), but they're merely totally incorrect. It's his supposedly rational explanations for human behavior that are really sickening, like his proposal for a "linguistic kill shot" that would end ISIS/DAESH once and for all:

If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.

We'll have somebody at the State Department translate that into Arabic for leafleting all over Syria and Iraq, and see how well it works. Can't you just see all the young jihadis turning their Kalashnikovs on their leaders in the name of more access to hugs and pussy? If the women let them have it, of course. They can be so unreasonable about these matters.

[ Dilbert Blog via We Hunted the Mammoth ]