Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive August 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #232 Segments
MainContent Politics as Persuasion

Back to episode — Episode 232 Scott Adams - The Battle of the Sexes, 2018

Context —

So there's a poll asking who do you believe in the Kavanaugh situation. Christine Ford, people who believe her: 36 percent. Brett Kavanaugh: 30 percent. So more people believe Christine Ford, but almost an equal number in both of those categories are unsure. Now how does that poll compare to the poll you saw that said only 25 percent of women believed the accuser? Completely different, right? Rig…

← Previous segment →

All right, let's talk about a few more things. It doesn't seem like it's shaping up, this Thursday event with Christine Ford and Kavanaugh, Christine Ford's testifying in particular. Does it seem like this is battening up? It's forming the battle of the sexes again.

Those of you who are not old enough, let me explain what the battle of the sexes refers to. So it was the '70s, I think, in which ex-number-one tennis player, male tennis player Bobby Riggs, who was sort of a famous gambler, you know, crazy personality guy, he bet Billie Jean King, who was at the time the current number one female player, that he could play her in tennis and beat her. She's the number one best female player in the world at the time, and he was a retired older, I forget, in his late 50s or whatever he was, but he was way past his prime. But he said that even past his prime, a man could beat a woman at tennis.

Now it was all great fun, and I remember watching it live when I was a kid, and we didn't know who would win. It was actually really interesting. I had no idea. As it turns out, Billie Jean King won, and it was considered a big event in terms of the overall war of men and women.

Now it seems to me that this Kavanaugh confirmation is lining up to really not be about Kavanaugh anymore. It started that way, but it's not really about Kavanaugh anymore, is it? Doesn't seem like it's really another battle of the sexes, because the objections to Kavanaugh are almost entirely based on what people believed he would rule in terms of women's reproductive rights. That's the main issue, right?

So it's primarily about a gender difference and preference. And all of the discussion of whether he did or did not do the things which he is accused of doing have everything to do with the credibility of women making accusations. So this is what makes it a battle of the sexes, because it's left the battle has left the field of these two people and whether one person gets a job. It's no longer about that. It's no longer about somebody getting appointed. It's now elevated to the bigger question of power.

You know, who has the power? Do women have the power, in this case it would be to be believed without the benefit of corroborating support, or do men have the power, which is the ability to presumably abuse and get away with it a lot, and also the power to not be accused of something you didn't do and to still be innocent until proven guilty?

So there's a lot on the line here that has nothing to do with the individuals involved. It has a lot to do with our bigger impression of the patriarchy versus the matriarchy. Who has power? Who doesn't? Can a man ever run for office? What will happen to the sons? You know, will it be safe for men and women to even be together? You know, if you're watching this and you're in the corporate world, I just saw a tweet this morning. Somebody in the corporate world said that they've discontinued all private contact with women, just discontinued in a business setting. So in a business setting, this is someone who won't make a phone call privately to a woman. It will actually require someone else to be on the call. It requires a witness to a phone call.

And you say to yourself, well that's crazy. You don't need a witness just to make a phone call, a man to a woman in a business setting. But maybe you do. All right, it's not crazy. It's sort of the Mike Pence rule attenuated a little bit. I'm sure he makes phone calls to women, but yeah, you could take it to that extreme and you wouldn't be crazy. It wouldn't be crazy. It would just be safe.

So what do you think this is going to do to turnout gender-wise? Seems to me that women would be highly incented. I would imagine that the turnout for the midterm among women would be very high. What would be the turnout among men if you were to guess? What more? Would there be a greater increase in turnout of men or a greater increase in turnout for women based on what's in the atmosphere right now? What would you guess, more men or more women?

Now here's a, yeah I was going to say something and I'm pulling back. We're gonna change the subject and keep myself out of trouble.

Context —

I noticed that Michael Moore's movie, did you see the box office results for Michael Moore's new movie? It's called Fahrenheit 11:9, referring to the day after the election, and it's an anti-Trump movie, I believe. The Michael Moore movie, let me give you the actual numbers because it's shocking how poorly it did. Now he's not, Michael Moore is not a box office draw anymore, but still. Let's see i…

Next segment → →