>From a discussion of feminist men on the perversely misnamed NiceGuy’s MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) forum. (Requires registration, so here’s a screencap.) There is so much wrongness packed into this brief comment; it’s really quite impressive.
Categories
>The Stepford Solution
>Yeah can't imagine what's wrong with the ultimate objectification of women… eye rolls
>On a related note:http://www.yixingteapotsale.com/teaname.htm
>Better than being with a feminist that's for sure.Random Brother
>Actually, this comment, from a different thread on that forum, cracked me right up:"… but still i like the ladies shaved when i see hair that doesnt belong it is like they are trying to be like men, women with pit hair, pussy hair,etc are a symbol of feminism and female disobidience to their natural role"Don't you women know that having something as natural as pubic hair is being disobedient to your natural role?! Stop trying to be like men by having hair that doesn't belong!!
>You know, Mr. Futrelle, I think he does raise an interesting issue, though. This is just me, but I had a conversation with a futurist a little while ago (a futurist, for those of y'all who don't know, is someone who's very interested in the future–specifically, how advancing technology and science will change both society and daily life in the years to come).This fellow had been having a conversation with a woman about this new life-like female android thing that came out recently in Japan. It still has a ways to go, but she found it "creepy"–it was like a Stepford wife, essentially. When my acquaintance grilled her further, she said she was afraid it would be a replacement for real-life flesh and blood women.A good point, and one that some might say lies at the heart of feminist objections to not only "stepford wives" but also to less advanced sexbots, sex dolls, and (for some feminists, not all) pornography in general. But here's how my acquaintance responded:"Men had been threatened by androids taking male roles for years, by replacing us in the workforce. All those robots building cars and computers in factories? They are robot men. Do you have any idea how much misery men (and their families) endured as droves of (male) blue-collar workers lost their jobs to automatons who performed their "masculine" duties better than they were ever able to? Now we have robot women. It's inevitable."So I have to wonder–and you, Mr. Futrelle, or Tec, or a MRA or anybody can answer if they wish. If a Stepford wife–or sexbot, or whatever, is the "ultimate objectification of women," aren't the androids and robots we see on factory floors, which are doing the jobs actual flesh and blood men used to do, for the most part–the "ultimate objectifications of men?" If you're opposed to Stepford wives (or sexbots) because they either allow men a degree of freedom from women or "objectify" women in some way or whatever, should you oppose the sorts of automata my buddy mentioned due to doing the same to men?Genuinely not trying to troll or anything here, but it is something I've been thinking about. Guess that's what I get for hanging around a sci-fi forum…
>Other computers aren't objectifications of men, the gender of the workers is incidental. The replacement of workers with computers is the objectification of the worker. It says that there is no value in the humanity of the worker, only his work, and that a computer sufficeintly provides what the worker could provide.So what is the value of humanity? Do we need it to fasten a bolt on an assembly line? Do we need it to draft a legal document? Do we need it to craft a novel? Do we need it in a lover?It's an interesting question, but I think most people would say it is needed for the lover and the novel. I would draw the line after the bolt fastening.
>To further clarify, the role of life partner and lover (the role filled by a stepford wife) is a complete identity. When you replace it with a computer, you have completely objectified the person who acted in the role.A man who fastens bolts identity is only a small percent bolt fastener. When he is replaced with a robot, his skill as a bolt fastener is objectified, but the rest of his identity remains human be devalued as far as bolt fastening goes.
>And finally, it is interesting that it has long been noted that factory work is dehumanizing. The conditions, the repetition, the boredom. The lack of space for human intellect or creativity.Perhaps it is the other way around, perhaps the men on the factory floor were doing the jobs of robots, and now that robots have caught up they must go back to doing the jobs of men, jobs that require humanity.Then again, factory work isn't the only work where humanity has been devalued.
>I don't know why women would be afraid of those replacements, I really don't. Real-life flesh and blood women should relish the moment when these replacements have been refined to the point where they can also reproduce real-life flesh and blood males and women can cease to exist and not have go through life trying to abide by men's contradictory rules of how they are supposed to be. Think about it…He could easily program his bot to not take away men's jobs, to stay home and cook, clean, etc., and then he could come home from work and berate it for being a parasite on the fruits of his labours, staying home on its butt all day while he worked hard.He could easily program his bot to be a virgin 'til they married, then program it to be Jenna Jameson in bed on their wedding night, and then after having the incredible orgasm that he had so longed for (don't worry, the bot won't be programmed to want an orgasm, too), berate it for being a lying whore and slut because it was able to give him such an incredible orgasm.He could easily program his bot to offer to pay for both, or at least its share, of the dinner and/or movie tab, and then berate it for trying to usurp his role and emasculate him. Later on, after requesting the obligatory blowjob in return for his having paid the tab, he could berate it for always expecting that he will be the one that has to pay for both of them.
>Oh, and the bot certainly won't have any of that nasty pubic hair to symbolize its disobedience, either. It'll know its place, by golly!!
>From a discussion of feminist men …The link is broken, please fix it.
>I think that "futurists" and anti feminist tech are on to something in making the connection between gender roles and technology. What enabled the dual income family and the changes in the female role was technology – the pill, the surplus of female friendly jobs, the domestic mod cons that allow people to work a full day and still have a reasonable standard of living without a full time person at home … all down to technology.
>Good point Eoghan. In fact, women leaving the home would not have been possible if there was no longer a full time job at home. No more bread baking, clothes washing, dish washing, floor washing, rug beating to fill up an entire day. Of course we could have reached a point where either men or women stayed home to do these things, or both worked part time, but social structure generally needs a kick like change in technology to change.Also ties in to what I was trying to say before. Saying that a factory worker is "replaced" by a robot is like saying a woman is "replaced" by a washing machine. The entire person is not replaced, the person's work is replaced, and whatever humanity the person lent the the work is lost. The more rote the work, the less need for humanities' touch.When a sex bot is developed, it does not replace a man or woman. If we buy that it is a replacement for a sexual partner than it replaces the man or womans sexual work, which some would argue requires quite a bit of humanity and much is lost by replacing the person with a machine. However, we could also see it as an upgrade from a hand rather than a replacement of a man/woman.
>Link fixed. I actually have a post or two planned about MRAs and sexbots. But I think in this case the guy is talking about a real woman who would behave like a pliable, non-threatening, non-thinking, non-demanding sex robot.
>Yeah, in the case of the Stepford wife the actual person is not only replaced but destroyed. It is the ultimate rejection of humanity in favor of machine.
>Well Sandy, women have been having sex with machines for quite some time, its a huge market. Alternatives for men are depicted as shameful and wrong, there is strong opposition to a normalized and safe sex trade from big feminism and the religious right and already there is opposition to sex bots from feminists, on top of that guys that are excluded from the sex market are given shameful labels .. "loser that cant get a date", "creep" and so on…One area of liberation from gender roles the MM seems to be interested in is liberating men from the sexual power that women hold over men, if there ever was to be a technology that negated the need for sexual relations with real women, it would be enormously liberating for men..and I suspect that some of the craziness that David finds on these sites is rooted in sexual scarcity.
>@Vagrant's Voice"So I have to wonder–and you, Mr. Futrelle, or Tec, or a MRA or anybody can answer if they wish. If a Stepford wife–or sexbot, or whatever, is the "ultimate objectification of women," aren't the androids and robots we see on factory floors, which are doing the jobs actual flesh and blood men used to do, for the most part–the "ultimate objectifications of men?" If you're opposed to Stepford wives (or sexbots) because they either allow men a degree of freedom from women or "objectify" women in some way or whatever, should you oppose the sorts of automata my buddy mentioned due to doing the same to men?"You completely misunderstand me, Vagrant's voice. I'm not opposed to sex-bots, or porn, or sex toys, or whatever. Men want to be with sex dolls go right ahead. No, seriously. And why not? You think women wouldn't want a man-bot?What do you think dildos are? Hell, man-bots would be pretty cool. In fact, get a man-bot that looks like Robert Pattinson and sign me up! (I would consider it a piss-poor replacement for a real human relationship though). I'm sex-positive generally and advocate anyone doing pretty much whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't involve animals or children or any other non-consentual sex(rape). Men choosing anything that makes them happy is fine by me and more power to them. But sex toys et al. – that's not what we're talking about here at all, and that's what needs to be clear because you don't seem to see the very, very big difference. In Stepford Wifes, women are literally replaced with an object and though not specified, they are killed, destroyed, no longer existing. If you haven't seen the movie I suggest you check it out (the original). It's a metaphor for the women's objectification and the commodity model. Characterizing it as simply men choosing to use sexbots over women (and, as I said, though not specified, the idea that women would use menbots) is a fallacy then. It is literally replacing women with an object and throwing away and destroying the original, simply because the original had sentience – original and ultimately uncontrollable thoughts, feelings, and actions. Objectification and ultimately, gendercide – that's what Stepford Wives are.
>Just to be doubly clear, I'm not in any way advocating for the objectification and/or replacing of actual men – living human beings – with robots. It would be a piss poor replacement for a romantic relationship and/or sex with a real man.
>As usual, 1 comment taken out of context from a long thread.The link changed and it is now from another MRA-forumThis thread is called:All American men are feminists just like the women and the OP is starting with:I realize now that American men have the women they truly deserve. Why do I write this? Because everywhere I turn, it is the men doing their best to push me into female-domination. When I criticize a woman or women in general, or, heaven forbid, American women, it is the men who admonish me, make fun of me, insult me and mock me. Therefore it's now my belief that the problem is that American men have no standards and simply buy into all the lies. And?One of my current coworkers claims to have spent 23 y in the Navy. I always wondered why he wasnt getting a pension. …..Then he starts claiming that I should get a Stepford wife or marry a Japanese life-like doll. I really brought out the mangina in him yesterday. …..Now I dont get upset at someone having a different point of view from me. What upsets me is people claiming I am a loser, etc, for not wanting to live their feminist lifestyle. Of course David is upset if somebody says something like that…
>@EoghanYes, a vibrator is in the same class as a sexbot. Like I said, you can see it as replacing a sexual partner, in which case you are losing what humanity brings to sex (quite a bit). However, it can also be seen as improving the hand.I see it more as the second, but people do use sex toys in both capacities. Male sexuality has a long way to go in terms equality. Men are at once supposed to have insatiable sexual appetites and never supposed to resort to self stimulation. When they do it is seen as pathetic, because a man is defined by his conquest of women.While women need permission to be sexual, men need permission to not be sexual. They need permission to be defined by other qualities if they wish. And they need permission to engage in self gratification without shame.
>The man is shameless. And look what Tec is trying to say now, sexbots = gendercide?
>What? That's not what Tec is saying.Tec says "I'm not opposed to sex-bots, or porn, or sex toys, or whatever. Men want to be with sex dolls go right ahead. No, seriously. And why not?"
>Tec is saying that the Stepford Wives shows gendercide, because the women are actually replaced with robots. That is the women are destroyed and replaced with robots.Do you have trouble reading?
>"The link changed and it is now from another MRA-forum"Huh? Scroll down. The quote is from comment #3 in the thread, posted by the OP.
>(Sandy said… Yeah, in the case of the Stepford wife the actual person is not only replaced but destroyed. It is the ultimate rejection of humanity in favor of machine.)David changed the link already to another MRA forum, which does not require registration.Where does it say, that women should not be replaced but destroyed?Anyway, this is entirely wrong, as MRAs never support such crazy statements like 'to destroy all women', but they recommend to reject and to ignore certain groups of malicious and greedy women. MRAs also recommend men to refrain from any private relationship with women in some certain countries as their laws are biased against men.Simply said, MRAs advice men how to avoid some serious mistakes in their life.