>
 |
| Build your own what? |
So the good fellows over on MGTOWforums.com were discussing, as they so often do, the impending arrival of the sexy robot ladies, and some of the practical problems that are holding them back (“Simply getting a robot to walk is an incredible task”), when the commenter calling himself Spidey suddenly directed his attention to me.
Well, not me personally, but all the “women (and manginas) reading this thread” and thinking less-than-charitable thoughts about the robotophile crowd. “If these guys are “perverts” and “creeps” then shouldn’t you be happy that they are releasing their urges on inanimate dolls rather then real human beings and hence not hurting anyone?” Spidey asked.
It’s a good question, and I’d like to offer my humble answer, which is: YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES. Please, take these robot ladies, and do whatever it is you want to do to them, and leave the real women of this world out of it.
Not that Spidey would be much interested in my answer. I doubt he would believe it, as he has clearly convinced himself that the women of the world (and, by extension, the manginas) are pissed at this high-tech challenge to their pussy monopoly. Speaking directly to the ladies, Spidey continued:
It’s because you KNOW that a sex doll can easily compete with you, because these dolls will always get better, they will always come out with newer, better looking sex dolls while you will always grow uglier, fatter and older. These dolls take away the only thing you can provide a man and the one thing you will use to control and manipulate him – sex. Now you can no longer with hold sex when you are wrong in an arguement just to get your way plus these sex dolls are STD free, unlike your used up vagina. Also I am pretty sure you realise that the men who buy these very expensive sex dolls must obviously have money, it must infuriate you that all that money is going towards an inanimate object that is better then you
Honestly, I think that most women will be rather relieved that guys who complain about “used up vaginas” will be voluntarily puling themselves out of the dating scene. But, never mind, because Spidey’s imaginary conversation with the ladies isn’t over yet.
Now I am also sure most women will say “but these things are fake and they will never provide ‘real love and companionship'”. Well guess what? men don’t want your love or companionship because your love is more fake then that provided by a virtual girl and your companionship is just as hollow. Is it “real love” when a woman f***s another man behind her husbands back, not because he has done anything wrong, only because she was bored or confused? how about when a woman f***s another man and pretends that the baby belongs to her hu
Let’s just skip past the rest of that paragraph; life is short, and it was just more of the same. Let’s try his next one:
As for companionship, men don’t want a creature that enjoys watching them suffer. We don’t want companoinship from a creature that demands everything from us but appreciates nothing. We don’t want to come home to a creature that yells at us for not earning enough money or working hard enough and if we do earn enough money we get yelled at for working too mu
Yeah, same deal. Let’s just move directly to his grand conclusion:
Yes ladies we would take a fake body and a fake personality over your aging body and narcissistic personality any day.
Trust me, Spidey, your personality isn’t going to win any awards any time soon either.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>@ Sophia X to have social power one had to own property. I actually don't think we have different explanations.
>To add to the list of pre-feminist feminists: Christine du Pizan
>social sanctions. We all suffer them. You can tout "I don't care what you think neener neener neener" as much as you want, when you're in trouble you'll need help from *someone*, hopefully someone that isn't alienated. Even if it is "only" a bank manager or a college admissions clerk or a mother or a sister or a friend.Not caring what others think of you =/= alienating everyone you meet. People tend to respect you more if you know how to do the right thing without obsessing over what everyone else will think of you. If I see someone getting their teeth knocked out by a woman, I'll try to stop her before she kills the guy. I won't obsess over whether he deserved it or if he cheated on her. Interrupting her assault might get me imprisoned or even murdered, but that's just the price I'm willing to pay.
>People who are obsessed with occupation and major are creepy.Was that addressed to me or the feminist who kept bellyaching about me choosing a certain career path? Or were you using another one of those double-standards you feminists always bitch about?
>@Lady – weren't men burned and murdered as witches too? Tell me if this rings a bell – "more weight."
>While
>Giles Corey was pressed to death because he refused to enter a plea as to the charges of witchcraft, which ensured his property could not be seized by the town fathers and his sons would be able to inherit. He was also the only man out of 26 women who were accused and prosecuted for witchcraft. How common a tactic, to ignore all the women who died in favor of a single man. Also, the Salem Witchcraft trials were not the only witchcraft trials in the world – by comparison to the witchcraft hysteria in some parts of England, Germany and France, they were downright mild. Try reading the Malleus Maleficarum one of these days. It's a manual on how church fathers (men) can find witches (women). Some men were burned as warlocks, but they are far, far outnumbered by the numbers of women who were burned.
>@e4919 – Your moral compass seems a bit skewed. If you had to spend the rest of your life in the wrong body, I don't think your views on feminism would remain as you've made them out to be. As an engineer, you'd be seen as incompitent compared to your colleages only because of your appearance. If you wanted to express your sexuality like you claim you have, you'd be objectivized even further. If you wanted to be treated as you were before, you might even be labeled as a feminist!
>This book on marriage is pretty good on the European origins of the concept of marriage as a method of social control. And it was all about the land unless you were poor-then no one cared.
>"You think blacks were 'enslaved' for HUNDREDS of years before finally doing something about it?""You think Jews were 'oppressed' for THOUSANDS of years before finally doing something about it?""You think gays were 'oppressed' for THOUSANDS of years before finally doing something about it?"
>Oh my god, can we please not have more than one person posting in this thread whose screename is an "e" followed by a long chain of numbers and letters? Please?
>As an engineer, you'd be seen as incompitent compared to your colleages only because of your appearance. I look forward to his denial of this. But you're right. I've read multiple firsthand accounts of the treatment that female engineering and science students receive. I've also known a couple, one of whom had to change her major after two or three semesters of being sexually harassed, constantly shouted down for every little error, and treated as incompetent by her classmates and professors alike.And then assholes like the infamous Yale president have the gall to stand up and profess ignorance as to why there aren't more women in science and engineering.
>Was that addressed to me or the feminist who kept bellyaching about me choosing a certain career path? Or were you using another one of those double-standards you feminists always bitch about? Both of you. But I found your busboy remarks kind of pompous, and like I said, Patrick Bateman-esque.I once dated a woman engineer. It was pretty rad, until it stopped being rad, of course.
>All you need to know about dating, in one sentence: "It was pretty rad, until it stopped being rad, of course."Well done, Johnny. 🙂
>Note to self: 950a6d16-50d2-11e0-ba97-000bcdcb8a73 is NOT e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73
>I think I love evilwhitemales argument about feminism being a ploy by women to control the pussy monopoly. It is, possibly, the single most historically inaccurate thing I've ever read.Prostitution first came to prominance during the industrial revolution? Someone clearlty hasn't heard about the brothels of Pompeii. Prostitution has been going on throughout history. Especially in places where women are forbidden from earning money in other ways. If you can't work and your husband dies you're pretty much left selling your body. Also, it's hard to argue that women had the mighty power of the pussy when they didn't have the freedom to choose who to marry (Dad picked that), or if they wanted to have sex or not (within a marriage a man could rape his wife legally), and had no way to leave him (she couldn't have property in her name or money of her own). So, a woman could be forced to marry someone she didn't like, raped by him, and had no way to leave… but she totally had all the power. Right.
>Sophia, it wasn't until recently that there was much meaningful distinction between "women's sexuality" and "private property."That's rather my point. More precisely, women (and children) were quasi-property for most of "civilized" history. To say that it was primarily about controlling women's sexuality seems to me to be putting the cart ahead of the horse. Sexuality was a mere incidence of ownership. I do think that we have an ugly and loud minority of people today (active anti-choicers) who are very motivated by a desire to control women's sexuality, I just don't believe they historically provided the critical mass to get what they want. Others, with different motivations, provided that. I'm not a Marxist, but… capital is a rapacious bastard. Or bitch.
>To expand, the othering of women and the othering of labor is a difference of degree, not kind.
>@950-copycatIgnoring the Bates-esque nature of the question, I would probably be paid about as much as I was before*, assuming I wasn't deported first to limbo for not having any identification. I'm not sure how incompetent I would be seen as considering my pay would be largely the same, even though women take more short-term sick leave**. Because I was raised to be industrious and take pride in my work – small things like designing and improving the infrastructure you could not live without – I doubt I would take it.I would also have to get my clothes tailored, and my attitude and behavior would be largely unchanged. As shocking as this may be, I would not become more susceptible to vapid magazines or fashion shows because my body changed, nor would I want to violate the first amendment by banning or censoring them.
>As for my "misogynistic" political views, I'd recommend you read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers. I would not take some bizarre "wrong body" dilemma as an excuse to blame any inadequacy on my former sex. Rather, I would focus on making things better.* nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib99352.htm (small difference in earnings, explainable by rounding errors or willingness to relocate, etc.)** sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212846.htm
>So, now we have 95-string and e4-string. I'll try to remember that.
>I view them as String and Much Better String.
>As for my "misogynistic" political views, I'd recommend you read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff SommersRead it. It's full of shit. The fact that a woman said it doesn't make it any truer.
>@tri – care to elaborate? Saying "it's full of shit" without a rational explanation only injects hormones and emotion into a discussion, and does nothing to educate. Try again.
>Sophia X"Sexuality was a mere incidence of ownership. I do think that we have an ugly and loud minority of people today (active anti-choicers) who are very motivated by a desire to control women's sexuality"Oh yes that's it! They're not doing what they do because they consider it murder they're just 'anti-choice' because it's all a big plot to control women's sexuality.Who do you sound like now?Oh yes! That evil white guy thingy that say's feminists are out to control MEN'S sexuality.