True or false?
While I like Dilbert, this is yet another example of how Scott Adams is an idiot with respect to most social issues. It’s an example of “not even wrong.”
Edit: Wait, true that Scott Adams said it, probably, because he’s a jackass. False that Clinton’s candidacy, or the reputation of modern feminism, is tattered. Was this a trick question?
False; her candidacy plainly isn’t in tatters, she’s doing just fine. Further, she can’t discredit femimism (let alone “modern” feminism, which Hillary does not embody at all) all by her lonesome.
Well, first of all, can we establish Hilary Clinton actually declared her gender a reason people should vote for her? I find that hard to believe but it’s possible, I guess. If it’s true, then Adams has an argument we can at least debate. If it’s not, then he is a fool or a liar and there is no debate to be had.
As it happens, while Adams is, IMHO, one of the mos talented and influential humorists of the last quarter century, he is also not terribly bright, self-aware, or educated, and has a propensity for sounding very stupid when he tries to seriously discuss a matter outside his realm of experience and knowledge.
Not sure what “the bandwagon of destruction” is, but it sounds fun. Is he a reactionary lamenting the downfall of Western civilization?
The Maury Povich show has probably done more damage to feminism than Hillary could ever dream of.
It’s this. Hillary Clinton has joined it, which bodes well for her support among 18-24 white males who drink Mountain Dew.
I’m presuming “true” that he said it; his brain-mouth censor does seem to indulge his inner Dogbert. The assertions made in the statement are clearly false, however.
At least on her Facebook posts she does, to some extent. I see her post a fair amount of things like pictures of girls and young women saying they’re ready for a woman president, things about how Clinton is “breaking barriers”, lots of mentions of her being a mom and grandmother, etc. She argues for lots of other reasons people should vote for her, too, but my impression is that part of her argument is that having a female president is a positive in and of itself.
If Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her (I’ll probably vote Sanders if he’s still in the race when my state has its primary).
As far as Scott Adams’ quote, I can’t be bothered to go look up the context. Dilbert was funny. I have a Dilbert coffee mug I like. A good friend gave it to me many years ago. That’s about the extent to which I care about Scott Adams. Clinton’s candidacy is clearly not in tatters. I don’t know what Adams means by “modern feminism”, but I think the cause of gender equality is probably resilient enough to survive Clinton’s campaign tactics.
It’s easy to imagine her speaking to a women’s organization and saying something along the lines of how she would be the candidate that would naturally best understand their issues. I’m sure something like that must have happened somewhere along the line. What’s hard to imagine is what there is about that to criticize.
Overstated. She’s not doing any favors for modern feminism, but that’s nothing new for her.
The only thing I think that he could possibly be talking about are those women who tried to shame women who support Sanders by saying they weren’t feminists because they weren’t voting for Clinton. That really did kinda make them not look like real feminists, and if feminists hadn’t made a big deal of disavowing it, it would have been bad for feminism.
And, yeah. Scott Adams is really bad with gender relations. It’s gotten him in trouble before, and I’m surprised he hasn’t shut up by now.
And, anyways, even if you think Clinton is horrible, it doesn’t set back feminism in any way. Feminism is about empowering women, and sometimes you’ll empower someone to do bad things. True egalitarianism means accepting that women aren’t perfect, either.
It’s true. Hillary has destroyed Feminism. Feminism is no more. RIP Feminism 2016.
I’m absolutely fine with including “is a woman” on any list of reasons to vote for someone. Having a woman as POTUS–provided, natch, that she is capable and competent–is indeed a positive thing in and of itself.
I do not find this sufficiently persuasive. As a woman attempting to break into a job that is rather dominated by men, it’s understandable that Clinton would have to exert efforts into convincing people that it is acceptable for a woman to be President.
That is a very different matter from what Adams said, which was “declaring her gender an important selling point for a job.” Literally taken, that can only be interpreted as Clinton saying her being a woman is not only a specific qualification for the job, but an IMPORTANT one, not just a minor benefit.
You tell me. :dubious:
He lost me years ago when he became a proponent of “intelligent design,” and lately he’s become a big MRA apologist.
False: The reputation of modern feminism has already been trashed by the actions of many modern feminists.
That must be why 60% of women and a third of men consider themselves feminists, higher than in previous periods in history, right?
I mean, sure, I’d like the numbers to be a lot higher than that, but it hardly comprises a “trashed reputation.”
As a feminist I find it appalling a presidential candidate stoop so low as to point out electing them would decrease the gender gap in representation for half the United States population.
Women already encompass 19.4% of congress! What else do these monsters want!