Scott Adams on marriage

not_dead_yet

Woodpecker
Dilbert creator Scott Adams has a blog with stuff that is all over the map -- red pill, blue pill, etc.

Today's blog post touches on his separation from his wife and step-kids, and it contains this little gem:

"In 2014, marriage is still the best economic arrangement for raising a family, but in most other senses it is like adding shit mustard to a shit sandwich. If an alien came to earth and wanted to find a way to make two people that love each other change their minds, I think he would make them live in the same house and have to coordinate every minute of their lives."

That got a chuckle out of me.
 

DarkTriad

Ostrich
Gold Member
not_dead_yet said:
Dilbert creator Scott Adams has a blog with stuff that is all over the map -- red pill, blue pill, etc.

Today's blog post touches on his separation from his wife and step-kids, and it contains this little gem:

"In 2014, marriage is still the best economic arrangement for raising a family, but in most other senses it is like adding shit mustard to a shit sandwich. If an alien came to earth and wanted to find a way to make two people that love each other change their minds, I think he would make them live in the same house and have to coordinate every minute of their lives."

That got a chuckle out of me.
If she gets a brilliant artist famous millionaire to marry her and take care of her kids, she should be coordinating around him.
 

RockHard

Kingfisher
Gold Member
That's a good read. http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_shit_sandwich_generation/

I got a lot of sympathy last year. Man, was that misplaced.

No one would choose the situation I found myself in, but I recognized it as a rare blank slate. I was free to reinvent my social life in any fashion I liked. And I had resources to do just that.
He also takes note of the "more single than married" phenomenon that was posted on here a few days ago.

Traditional marriage is the biggest obstacle to happiness in the United States. I give it twenty years before society acknowledges it to be a bad fit for modern times.
That's a scary thought.

He gets things horribly wrong too. Look back at his post Is Feminism Sexist? He points out the socio-economic inversion at play with catcallers. I disagree with the opening premise "women should have a few extra rights compared to men because women take on the greater responsibility for reproduction". He's using faulty logic here. Society doesn't grant a drone pilot the right to kill a kid, society just doesn't give a fuck. Police don't get to run red lights as part of the social contract, they get to do it because the government writes the rules. He gets it wrong in saying that "In modern society, power comes from three sources: education, money, and attractiveness." It's money, attractiveness and charisma. If you can convince people to do what you want, you have power. Education confers no power at all, except in that maybe you learned something that would get you money or persuasive abilities.

I don't think he's got all the answers but he's talking about the right questions.
 
not_dead_yet said:
"In 2014, marriage is still the best economic arrangement for raising a family, but in most other senses it is like adding shit mustard to a shit sandwich. If an alien came to earth and wanted to find a way to make two people that love each other change their minds, I think he would make them live in the same house and have to coordinate every minute of their lives."

That got a chuckle out of me.
Scott Adams recognizes some Red Pill elements, but ultimately is so steeped in Feminism, the Feminine Imperative & also the current nihilistic brainwashing that he completely misses several points:

First of all - he is a successful famous millionaire who currently looks like this:



Second he made the error of marrying a 37 year old mother of 2 children at age 49:



Sure - he was more overweight then etc., but if he was somewhat Game-savvy he could have easily found a 20-something girl with little issues who would have loved to stay together with him.

I don't think traditional marriage is going away anytime soon. But it probably isn't a coincidence that there are more single and divorced people than ever. Traditional marriage is the biggest obstacle to happiness in the United States. I give it twenty years before society acknowledges it to be a bad fit for modern times.

In the future I think you will see organized groups of "friends" that share duties to make all of their lives easier. One friend might enjoy raising kids and hate working a traditional job, so that friend stays home and does childcare for several single parents in return for a share of the collective income of the group. That is just an example, but you can see how one might engineer a better system than marriage.

If you disagree with anything I've written today, look around the next time you are on vacation. When you see couples vacationing with friends they usually look happy. When you see a married couple having dinner together - just the two of them for the ten-thousandth time - they both look like they came from a funeral.

Marriage is probably a great solution for 20% of the public. The rest of us need better systems.
The reason why his marriage sucked:

- indoctrinated into thinking that being a sensitive wuss was the way to go
- married a single mother past the wall 37 and with 2 kids
- she was not attracted to him physically
- he has no Game and refuses to learn - probably has read about it but discarded it
- he thinks that you have to have the same hobbies and interests and share them with your spouse - who cares about that? Share the time you have with passion, fuck, drink some wine and enjoy each other's company - most of the day is sleep, work and other interests anyway. But of course since his wife did not enjoy fucking him and having quality time with him, then he did not so either.

Marriage 1.0 is not dead, but Marriage 2.0 and 3.0 should die. And "communal living" or some kind of bat-shit-crazy polyamory is not the answer. Neither is Brave New World free fornication. You can bet your ass off that the utmost elite of the world adheres to marriage 1.0 if only for pure preservation. The destructive tendencies he experienced are for the lower masses.

His perception on feminism speaks volumes:

I don't believe in equal rights for women; women should have a few extra rights compared to men because women take on the greater responsibility for reproduction.
Fuck off Dilbert.

When any group of people takes on extra responsibility, society is often willing to grant those folks some extra rights. That's why a military drone pilot is legally allowed to take the life of an innocent child that happens to be in the same car as a terrorist.
No - that is just bullshit propaganda by people who have watched too much "Homeland" and believe every crap about the official 9/11 narrative. The "collateral damage" of drone strikes is 97%! I don't believe it is right to kill one innocent to take out a suspected terrorist. Go hire some assassins and snuff him out personally - there are plenty of danger-loving competent guys willing to go on such a mission. Give them 200.000$ to do it instead of the drone and the missiles. Drone strikes should be reserved for military targets only and not the ability to bomb a building where one person MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT be in it. And let me not start about the fact of questioning whether the person should be assassinated at all and for what reason.

So in my view, feminists are too conservative. They should be asking for superior rights, not equal rights. I think everyone reading this blog agrees with the feminist goals of, for example, equal pay for equal work, and the idea that women should be able to walk down the street without feeling threatened. Off hand, I can't think of any feminist goal that is unreasonable. There are real questions on how one measures pay gaps and whatnot, and how one approaches a particular problem, but those are details. Feminists have done a great service for humanity by aggressively improving the situation for women. I'm a fan of their work.
I take it back - the guy is beyond Blue Pill - he is the ultimate White Knight Leftist Male Feminist Idiot!


My point in all of this is that feminism is sexist by design. It has to be that way to be politically effective. You need a big, bad enemy because without it you can't generate the kind of change you need. I don't disagree with the strategy because it works, and historically it was in the service of a good cause.

But the long term risk with any good cause is that it can accidentally evolve into the evil it was designed to thwart. I think we are at or near that turning point with feminism.
He only acknowledges that there might be a little problem with feminism going slightly overboard. You think? Dilbert in all honesty you should be raped by Dogbert and drowned in Wally's coffee cup. You deserve your lot of working in a cubicle of hell.

I like his cartoons, but god damn, he is so thoroughly indoctrinated that there is no hope for him in this life.
 

TravelerKai

Peacock
Gold Member
Great break down Zel.

Scott Adams is one of the millions of men still blue pill, there is nothing red pill about him overall, regardless of the few little things that he acknowledges that are red-pill. He is no different than some of the dudes you could bump into at a church or a biker bar that will say some redpill shit from time to time. At the end of the day some old and busted bitch is still breaking their balls in some house they are paying for, in a Harley bike she allowed him to buy, or the SUV she told him that she wanted. At the end of the day, talk is cheap. The real difference between a red-pill talking man and a true red-pill man, is seen through the actions in their lives.

Also comedians are half-red pill by nature. I was watching an Eddie Griffin stand up video recently and I thought to myself, FUCK is Eddie Red Pill or what?! Then he drops a blue pill as hell joke moments later. Some comedians are heavier on the redpill thinking than others. Bill Burr, Eddie Griffin, Katt Williams, Paul Mooney, Tosh (kinda), etc. They get to talk like we talk, and get away with it, because everyone thinks it's a fucking joke from the beginning. If they really do feel that way, then the jokes on everyone else. Maybe they just need the money and it's just a fucking job to them and they truly keep their thoughts to themselves. Burr is so red pill-like I think he is actually Manosphere aware but he might be an exception to the rule. At the end of the day for these guys, it's still a business. Their agents would not appreciate them going off the rails whole hog.

Maybe Scott Adams will have a true red-pill moment someday. Maybe never. All of us have had one or two. If he did, I would not be surprised if he never wants to write another strip ever again. Since I became redpill there were a few hobbies I completely rejected immediately and never did them ever again. Writing a dry, sarcasm heavy, strip on corporate blue pill thinking people might make his stomach turn.
 

El Chinito loco

Crow
Gold Member
Most mainstream comic writers (and artists) are quite blue pill. I like stuff like Calvin and Hobbes too but if you go back and read it now it's full of blue pill stuff too. The father in that is the typical male buffoon and the mom is a bitchy nag.

Back in my early teenage years I remember how comics were always into very left leaning viewpoints on gays, race, religion, etc.. I don't read comics anymore but out of curiosity from the rave reviews picked up one of the new series ( D.C.'s new 52) off the internet to see what it's like now. A few issues into Superman or whatever I gave up and realized it was just unreadable shit. Everything was millenial type snark with lots of SJW commentary throw in too. Even the most talented writers out there in that business such as Alan Moore or Grant Morrison just can't help themselves.

Dilbert has a lot of accurate viewpoints on cubicle corporate culture but it just serves as therapy for office drones. They have a place to see their frustrations vented on paper but in reality they feel helpless and won't do anything to change their station in life either. It's beta surrender in strip form.
 

DarkTriad

Ostrich
Gold Member
Zelcorpion said:
not_dead_yet said:
"In 2014, marriage is still the best economic arrangement for raising a family, but in most other senses it is like adding shit mustard to a shit sandwich. If an alien came to earth and wanted to find a way to make two people that love each other change their minds, I think he would make them live in the same house and have to coordinate every minute of their lives."

That got a chuckle out of me.
Scott Adams recognizes some Red Pill elements, but ultimately is so steeped in Feminism, the Feminine Imperative & also the current nihilistic brainwashing that he completely misses several points:

First of all - he is a successful famous millionaire who currently looks like this:



Second he made the error of marrying a 37 year old mother of 2 children at age 49:



Sure - he was more overweight then etc., but if he was somewhat Game-savvy he could have easily found a 20-something girl with little issues who would have loved to stay together with him.

I don't think traditional marriage is going away anytime soon. But it probably isn't a coincidence that there are more single and divorced people than ever. Traditional marriage is the biggest obstacle to happiness in the United States. I give it twenty years before society acknowledges it to be a bad fit for modern times.

In the future I think you will see organized groups of "friends" that share duties to make all of their lives easier. One friend might enjoy raising kids and hate working a traditional job, so that friend stays home and does childcare for several single parents in return for a share of the collective income of the group. That is just an example, but you can see how one might engineer a better system than marriage.

If you disagree with anything I've written today, look around the next time you are on vacation. When you see couples vacationing with friends they usually look happy. When you see a married couple having dinner together - just the two of them for the ten-thousandth time - they both look like they came from a funeral.

Marriage is probably a great solution for 20% of the public. The rest of us need better systems.
The reason why his marriage sucked:

- indoctrinated into thinking that being a sensitive wuss was the way to go
- married a single mother past the wall 37 and with 2 kids
- she was not attracted to him physically
- he has no Game and refuses to learn - probably has read about it but discarded it
- he thinks that you have to have the same hobbies and interests and share them with your spouse - who cares about that? Share the time you have with passion, fuck, drink some wine and enjoy each other's company - most of the day is sleep, work and other interests anyway. But of course since his wife did not enjoy fucking him and having quality time with him, then he did not so either.

Marriage 1.0 is not dead, but Marriage 2.0 and 3.0 should die. And "communal living" or some kind of bat-shit-crazy polyamory is not the answer. Neither is Brave New World free fornication. You can bet your ass off that the utmost elite of the world adheres to marriage 1.0 if only for pure preservation. The destructive tendencies he experienced are for the lower masses.

His perception on feminism speaks volumes:

I don't believe in equal rights for women; women should have a few extra rights compared to men because women take on the greater responsibility for reproduction.
Fuck off Dilbert.

When any group of people takes on extra responsibility, society is often willing to grant those folks some extra rights. That's why a military drone pilot is legally allowed to take the life of an innocent child that happens to be in the same car as a terrorist.
No - that is just bullshit propaganda by people who have watched too much "Homeland" and believe every crap about the official 9/11 narrative. The "collateral damage" of drone strikes is 97%! I don't believe it is right to kill one innocent to take out a suspected terrorist. Go hire some assassins and snuff him out personally - there are plenty of danger-loving competent guys willing to go on such a mission. Give them 200.000$ to do it instead of the drone and the missiles. Drone strikes should be reserved for military targets only and not the ability to bomb a building where one person MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT be in it. And let me not start about the fact of questioning whether the person should be assassinated at all and for what reason.

So in my view, feminists are too conservative. They should be asking for superior rights, not equal rights. I think everyone reading this blog agrees with the feminist goals of, for example, equal pay for equal work, and the idea that women should be able to walk down the street without feeling threatened. Off hand, I can't think of any feminist goal that is unreasonable. There are real questions on how one measures pay gaps and whatnot, and how one approaches a particular problem, but those are details. Feminists have done a great service for humanity by aggressively improving the situation for women. I'm a fan of their work.
I take it back - the guy is beyond Blue Pill - he is the ultimate White Knight Leftist Male Feminist Idiot!


My point in all of this is that feminism is sexist by design. It has to be that way to be politically effective. You need a big, bad enemy because without it you can't generate the kind of change you need. I don't disagree with the strategy because it works, and historically it was in the service of a good cause.

But the long term risk with any good cause is that it can accidentally evolve into the evil it was designed to thwart. I think we are at or near that turning point with feminism.
He only acknowledges that there might be a little problem with feminism going slightly overboard. You think? Dilbert in all honesty you should be raped by Dogbert and drowned in Wally's coffee cup. You deserve your lot of working in a cubicle of hell.

I like his cartoons, but god damn, he is so thoroughly indoctrinated that there is no hope for him in this life.

"So in my view, feminists are too conservative. They should be asking for superior rights, not equal rights. "

They're way ahead of him.
 

CRR

Kingfisher
Problem with the institution of marriage now is simply the sense of entitlement of women. Every chubby cubicle jockey thinks that because she has to get up before 10:00 am and go to a job that makes her an empowered, independent woman thus men should bow before her. And the media reinforces this by insisting that all women are beautiful and all behavior is justified.
 
CRR said:
Problem with the institution of marriage now is simply the sense of entitlement of women. Every chubby cubicle jockey thinks that because she has to get up before 10:00 am and go to a job that makes her an empowered, independent woman thus men should bow before her. And the media reinforces this by insisting that all women are beautiful and all behavior is justified.
YES!!
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
Actually, Scott Adams still has his blue pill moments. He claims not to be pro-Trump, but he just recognizes the effectiveness of what Trump does.

I don't think he's truly manosphere red pilled like we are. It's strange, because the red pill and the ideas behind it are getting wider and wider awareness, and you see red pill comments very widely in any comment thread nowadays. However, it still seems as if huge numbers of people aren't actually aware of red pill thinking. If they are, they don't directly mention it, and they still say a lot of blue pill things.
 
I would probably marry a 37 year old gal with 2 kids if I remarried. I like kids and I don't really like 20 something girls, because they'll want to have their own kids.

However if I were a millionarie and marrying a 37 year old, she'll damn well be submissive. No negotiating that point.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
redbeard said:
TravelerKai said:
Great break down Zel.
I had no idea Zel changed his name until this post.

:huh:
Thanks for bumping this, that was pretty good vintage Zel there. Can't believe how cucked Adams is, but on second thought it makes perfect sense, him a New York Boomer who studied at Berkeley and lived there the rest of his life. He's got the whole suite of local mindfuck, vegetarian atheist feminist, minus the TDS.
 
This gentleman recently did a masters in business podcast with Barry ritholz. He described himself as left of Bernie Sanders, so I'm not sure why his pill status is in question. It didn't seem like his views had morphed much over the years.
 

NoMoreTO

Pelican
Scott Adams is known for his outside the box thinking on influence. That is his specialty and why people tune in. His twitter follows Roosh so he is tuned into different types of thought. Give the guy some red pill cred, he met DJT in the Whitehouse! I would be interested to be a fly on the wall in that room.

Marriage contracts to me are a tough one to justify other than religious, traditional reasons, or reproductive reasons. I would prefer to just marry in the church and keep the feminist state out of it.

Not giving over 50% of your finances the day you marry is actually a more authentic marriage. It sets you as provider and her as domestic beauty / child raiser. This day in age, men lose power when they marry, very sad. I say strategize accordingly to balance things out. Getting divorce raped is not something I want to experience.
 

Moma

Peacock
Gold Member
NoMoreTO said:
Scott Adams is known for his outside the box thinking on influence. That is his specialty and why people tune in. His twitter follows Roosh so he is tuned into different types of thought. Give the guy some red pill cred, he met DJT in the Whitehouse! I would be interested to be a fly on the wall in that room.

Marriage contracts to me are a tough one to justify other than religious, traditional reasons, or reproductive reasons. I would prefer to just marry in the church and keep the feminist state out of it.

Not giving over 50% of your finances the day you marry is actually a more authentic marriage. It sets you as provider and her as domestic beauty / child raiser. This day in age, men lose power when they marry, very sad. I say strategize accordingly to balance things out. Getting divorce raped is not something I want to experience.
How many people are getting divorce raped out of the total amount getting married though? Couldn't that just be a horror story shared for those who are interested in watching a horror film? The person getting divorce raped, isn't it a case of them not tying up their wealth properly prior to tying the knot? Do we have examples of those who got divorced and settled accordingly? Those getting divorce raped, were their pre-nups overridden in court or something?
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
Divorce rape happens even if you're not wealthy, because the wife decided she's not haaappy, files for divorce, then hits you for child support while keeping you from seeing your kids. With child support, she has enough money to live comfortably. After paying child support, you can hardly afford to get a shared apt in a cheap part of town. If you ever lose your job, you have to keep paying the child support anyway, or you can be thrown in jail. There are no adjustments to the child support for your financial circumstances.

I have known many men in this boat, and have been there myself. It's pretty common, and in most cases the divorce was clearly the woman's fault.
 
I think RoastBeefCurtains4Me made a great break down but he's got a hot girl now, I have to admit. But would they be together if he hadn't made money and some fame on Dilbert? I think we know the answer to that.

www.instagram.com/kristinabasham/

And this thing he which he wrote in 2011 sounds pretty red pill.

Scott Adams said:
The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

https://blog.dilbert.com/2011/03/27/im-a-what/
But then again, that article with "feminists have done a great service for humanity" came out 3 years later.
 

Moma

Peacock
Gold Member
RoastBeefCurtains4Me said:
Divorce rape happens even if you're not wealthy, because the wife decided she's not haaappy, files for divorce, then hits you for child support while keeping you from seeing your kids. With child support, she has enough money to live comfortably. After paying child support, you can hardly afford to get a shared apt in a cheap part of town. If you ever lose your job, you have to keep paying the child support anyway, or you can be thrown in jail. There are no adjustments to the child support for your financial circumstances.

I have known many men in this boat, and have been there myself. It's pretty common, and in most cases the divorce was clearly the woman's fault.
But child support happens whether you're married or not. I'm talking about divorce here. Was it something you could have avoided?
 
Top