Or maybe not. Maybe it's just your typical bigot universalism tendency. Maybe that's what it always has been. Either way, Adams has decided that the Democratic National Convention is very likely lowering the testosterone of American men, and thereby their happiness, on a national scale.
Why is this? Because the celebration of woman aspiring to positions of power that they have never held throughout the country's history-- specifically, the presidency-- makes Adams feel defeated:
I watched singer Alicia Keys perform her song Superwoman at the convention and experienced a sinking feeling. I’m fairly certain my testosterone levels dropped as I watched, and that’s not even a little bit of an exaggeration. Science says men’s testosterone levels rise when they experience victory, and drop when they experience the opposite. I watched Keys tell the world that women are the answer to our problems. True or not, men were probably not feeling successful and victorious during her act.
Let me say this again, so you know I’m not kidding. Based on what I know about the human body, and the way our thoughts regulate our hormones, the Democratic National Convention is probably lowering testosterone levels all over the country. Literally, not figuratively. And since testosterone is a feel-good chemical for men, I think the Democratic convention is making men feel less happy. They might not know why they feel less happy, but they will start to associate the low feeling with whatever they are looking at when it happens, i.e. Clinton.I'm sure that you-- but perhaps not Adams-- have already heard the aphorism "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." Maybe you've acknowledged it, though, without trying to stop and consider whether it really feels like oppression. I can't actually say, one way or another-- I don't know of any scientific studies that can verify it (though if you do, please let me know).
And Adams is making a scientific statement here. He's saying that watching and listening to Alicia Keys perform Superwoman made him feel like a loser. That this feeling of non-triumph means lower testosterone, and therefore that this feeling must be spreading across the country and lowering testosterone levels on a national scale. Wow!
So what if he's right? Let's just assume he is, for the sake of argument.
Power can certainly be a zero-sum game-- if someone gains it, somebody else is losing it. Adams described the feeling he was having as like losing. Being non-triumphant. I believe him about that. I believe that to someone who sees the world in hierarchical terms and has bought stock in just-world bias, equality feels like losing.
He gets two things wrong about this, though.
First, he thinks that because he feels like a loser, he's been somehow wronged. "Superwoman" apparently profoundly disturbed his worldview, and rather than question that worldview he blames the song, Alisha Keys, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, or all of the above for harming him. I feel bad, those people made me feel bad, those people are wrong!
Second, he universalizes-- he thinks that all American men feel bad, or should feel bad, right along with him. He wants to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all men against feeling bad, without ever checking to see whether everybody else who identifies as male feels like a loser too. Presumably at least some of them don't-- there were men at the DNC, right? A few of them? Was any footage captured of them bending over in agony while Alisha Keys was singing, protecting their genitalia?
That's a common tendency of bigots-- white supremacists assume that all white people are white supremacists, homophobes assume all straight people are homophobes, etc. and that anyone who isn't is either lying or a traitor. Scott Adams, of course, assumes that all men are as threatened as he is by women in powerful positions.
Thankfully, he's mistaken about that.
Let me restate that more emphatically-- thankfully, Scott Adam is wrong. He does not get to speak for mankind, any more than any other fearful member of the majority gets to speak against a minority.
When I posted about this on Facebook, my friend Ben Pobjie commented:
He assumes that being male is like being on a team, and we all put that team first and identify with other members of that team before all else. I might be threatened by women in powerful positions if I thought I was on the same team as Scott Adams, and that the purpose of life was to be on the winning team.When you think in those terms, it's really a choice you make-- do you define your "team" based on incidental characteristics and then push for them to win, whatever "winning" is supposed to mean? Or do you choose your team based on what they say and do, regardless of these other differences, and work together for common goals rather than common traits?
I seem to have less and less time, these days, for people who choose the former.