Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, recently wrote a post on his blog about men’s rights which turned into a huge internet hairball. He said that it was meant to be satire, feminists said that it was obviously misogynistic, and men’s rights advocates said he was a pussy for back-tracking on what they presumed to be the actual intent of the post when he said that it was supposed to be satire.

For the record I believe him on the satire claim. The post skirted the edge of offense but had a kernel of truth, pretty much the definition of satire.

That’s the background to a recent post on fairness, the thrust of which seems to be: if you’re not happy - lump it. I don’t know what the legal term of art for “lump it” is but I’m sure there must be one.

At the end of the post Mr. Adams posits the following test for whether or not something you feel aggrieved by is actually unfair.

So I propose a simple test to determine if you, individually, are a victim of gender unfairness. If a genie gave you the chance to magically switch your gender, and become a member of the other sex, would you do it? And let’s say the new you would be about the same as now on the scale of attractiveness, intelligence, ethnicity, circumstance, and health. The only real change would be gender. Do you take the offer?

If your answer is no, then maybe fairness isn’t what you really want. Maybe what you want is all the advantages you have now plus the good stuff that other people have. I totally understand. I want the same thing.

I’m shocked at the childishness of the proposal.

If you wouldn’t want to be turned into the exact opposite of what you are by a genie then you don’t have an actual grievance? Really? That’s the best you can do?

Hmmmm…… Maybe it’s just satire, not stupidity and I’m just missing the point.