Dilbert creator Scott Adams was trending on Twitter yesterday for the wrong reasons — that is how I know about this controversy. He wrote a blog post that was widely derided for being misogynist; feminist blogs jumped on it. Scott replied in the comments section of one such post. Today, he wrote another post explaining himself.

Read all the entries. Make up your mind. I’ve tried to remain objective in writing about it so you are not biased.


Equal rights and discrimination are topics that shouldn’t need debate: any progressive society must have no discrimination. I agree with a majority of feminists on all issues. But I’m wary of feminists who consider misandry as the answer to misogyny.

I believe that intent, and not content alone, matters while labeling something sexist (or racist, for that matter). A few days ago, I was called a sexist for saying, “It is harder for women to travel alone in India than it is for men”. Therefore, as a rule of thumb I stay away from feminists although I have nothing against a majority of them.

There are those who have different ideas than mine and there are those are just prejudiced. I welcome discussion with the former and I stay away from the latter — it is the path of least resistance and most learning.


Scott Adams is an intelligent person who deserves being read. I loved this excerpt from his latest post:

But I do think people benefit by exposure to ideas that are different from whatever they are hearing, even when the ideas are worse. That’s my niche: something different. That approach springs from my observation that brains are like investment portfolios, where diversification is generally a good strategy. I’m not trying to move you to my point of view; I’m trying to add diversity to your portfolio of thoughts. In the short term, I hope it’s stimulating enough to be entertaining. Long term, the best ideas probably come from people who have the broadest exposure to different views.

This is part of the reason why I blog. I don’t think I can make a convincing argument for or against issues in one blogpost. I’m certain we don’t all agree on issues like suicide, cannibalism, incest or bestiality. However, you are exposed to ideas that are different, uncomfortable or just contrarian. It expands your scope and by virtue of feedback, mine.


Back to the controversy, I don’t think Scott is a misogynist. In fact, I didn’t conclude anything after reading his original post. It took me many minutes to just comprehend what he was trying to say through his analogies.

If you concluded otherwise, to each his own I say.