The Real Goal Of Sexbots And Artificial Reproduction Is Making Women Obsolete: All of these marvelous advancements in femme-engineering can only mean one thing: it’s time to admit that the planned obsolescence of the female on Earth is nearly complete: The author probably could use a hug.

novice_at_life · 2016-12-10T04:40:10+00:00

It's obvious by the tone of the article, that what she's really upset about is losing the power to control a man by rationing sex as a reward.

AloysiusC · 2016-12-10T08:10:10+00:00

If it's true that a significant number of men would consider a sexbot over a real woman is a strong message in itself. It tells us how low their expectations from relationships have sunk.

So, what has traditionally been an extreme seller's market might one day see cheap crappy products appear. At least they will force a minimum standard at a maximum price on the market.

Wisemanner · 2016-12-10T08:11:14+00:00

If they come about. Feminist academics are already putting forward arguments as to why they should be banned. Expect the pressure to increase.

MalusMalorum · 2016-12-10T09:30:44+00:00

...given how many writers proudly announced the obsolescence of men with even the first concepts of cloning and waxed on how much better the world would be, it is a bit telling that I see more alarmism like that than actual promotion of the idea from men. With possible advances in AI and robotics, all humans could become obsolete.

But ever since our societies could afford it, keeping around and alive the "obsolete" is what we do. The eldery, the severely disabled,the permanently unemployable, etc.

But maybe it will be a bit of a lesson in humility to learn, just sexual access and fertility alone are not enough to make one have worth.

fengpi · 2016-12-10T07:18:24+00:00

"I bought one of them bots but it malfunctioned.

It was like getting trapped in a milking-machine..."

purveyors of rape culture

But that's all men, innit?

poorpersonality · 2016-12-10T09:47:45+00:00

The government will regulate the whole thing so tight that women - and the traditional family as an institution - has nothing to fear. It's the same as with porn: before it became digitized (for the Internet), governments could and did regulate it. (At the same time governments have undermined marriage in other ways but that doesn't matter because it's mostly men who directly suffer.)

VR is what's going to set "us" free - and happy?

omegaphallic · 2016-12-10T14:36:01+00:00

I'm pretty sure this was intended as a parody as femimist fears over sexbots guys. The federalist isn't exactly radical fem central. Its satire.

No actual feminist would admit she fears sexbots because she fears she will be replaced as a "mother and whore".

Demonspawn · 2016-12-10T18:12:58+00:00

Women already used government to replace the provider and protector roles of men. Women are independent of individual men (but not their money collected via taxes).

When men use technology to replace the sex and reproduction roles of women, men will be independent of individual women.

And then the gender roles are really going to heat up... because it finally will be two sided rather than women running roughshod over men.

2016-12-10T07:55:20+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Tmomp · 2016-12-10T12:46:30+00:00

I can't tell if she hates men more or women.

She sounds sad.

Tedesche · 2016-12-10T16:36:11+00:00

This is actually a great article if you're just looking at its composition and use of language. The author is making a point by arguing against that point, thereby mocking her own critics. She spends the entire thing being a mouthpiece for her opposition, and does it in such a true-to-form way that she exposes the absurdity of their objections. Yes, she's selective in what it attends to, which indicates her own bias, but it's nonetheless masterful and clever writing. I enjoyed reading this for that alone—maybe few people are able to sympathize with that, but I thought it worth mentioning.

As for what's actually being said, I regard it as hyperbole, but hyperbole with a point (which is why I like it). Sex bots aren't going to replace women—not anytime soon at any rate. However, the author is correct when she says that's the goal. It absolutely is, and that legitimately should be a very scary thing for women. The vast majority of the history of civilization lies at men's feet; we have been the builders and the innovators, the craftsmen in both the physical and mental realms, for quite nearly and literally "forever." That is not to say women are incapable of contributing, and I don't mean to suggest anything like the idiotic notion that men are superior to women in any substantial way. But it is an historical fact that men have unquestionably bared the lion's share of effort when it comes to developing civilization and pushing humanity forward. Women have been valued largely for their biology alone—their ability to bear children. The idea that technology might soon make that gender advantage obsolete is a scary idea.

Why?

Because there is more to women than their wombs, but many of us don't realize it. Many people on this sub like to make a big deal out of gender differences in the brain, and they're often right—there are differences in male vs. female personalities. Not ones so large that they create preclusions on the individual level (e.g. men are never x, and women are never y), but average differences are clearly identifiable. This means that if we somehow manage to exclude women from reproduction, or at the very least rearing of our children, we may lose under-noticed, but nonetheless critical factors in socialization, the benefits of which we may yet fail to understand. This is the kind of change that takes place gradually, and is thus harder to notice until it's too late.

The world has yet to see the full scope of women's contribution in the workplace as well, and yet we have examples of women contributing immensely important things to society. I can't find a link to a specific clip, but those who watched Seth McFarlane's/Neil deGrasse Tyson's reboot of Carl Sagan's COSMOS series should remember the section about how the field of astrophysics wouldn't exist without the work of a group of deaf women and the key contributions of a non-deaf, but still female scientist leading them. I watch a lot of science documentaries, but one of the things I loved about that one was the degree to which it educated me about the contributions of women in science.

Are there differences between men and women? Yes, unquestionably. But we are all still human, and our similarities vastly outweigh our differences. As such, the discrepancies between men and women in terms of our contributions to the building society may be largely determined by societal gender roles and the fact that the intellectual contributions of women may have been prevented by the need for them to spend most of their time throughout history caring for bearing and caring for children. It has not been until relatively recently that that has changed for them, and we should give them a good several centuries to prove their worth beyond mothering.

I applaud this article for pointing out how important it is for us to appreciate the value of women in our society in as clever a way as it did. And I hope that the majority of MRAs can realize that women have value beyond their wombs. The sex bot phenomenon is nowhere near the issue that this article makes it out to be, but it highlights issues that are very real and very pervasive in our society, and are worth thinking about.

I would be very interested to hear people's thoughts on this matter.

Lumberingfeather · 2016-12-10T13:46:58+00:00

Will someone please think of teh wimminzzz!!!

uDurDMS8M0rZ6Im59I2R · 2016-12-11T01:05:52+00:00

The real goal of dildoes and artificial insemination is making men obsolete

The world is still populated with happy hetero human couples. Clickbait

Joy_blazefighter · 2016-12-11T06:24:23+00:00

chobits

mochacola · 2016-12-10T16:49:01+00:00

Sexbots are fine. They are not replacements of women. They are replacements of sleeves and hug pillows. Men who couldn't be bothered with relationships had been on the rise rapidly without sexbots. That happens first. Then, toys to entertain them comes later.

Artificial wombs is a different issue altogether. MRAs have been saying kids need both parents. It'll be hypocritical to say kids don't need moms. The funny part is, feminist movement helping LGBT's push for same sex parent families, stating "love is love", that parental love is gender free, will end up helping the case for kicking moms out of the picture.

Comments