Ladies, your days are numbered! The sexy lady sexbots are only a few years off, which will free men of the onerous task of having sex with your cootie-ridden human bodies, and pretty soon you won’t be needed for anything at all, not even making babies. At least according to this comment by “JR” on Roissy’s blog, which was recently highlighted on the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog:
I think the obvious gender-wide frustration of women today can partly be explained by this lowered value of children/reproduction altogether. Women understand that their primary purpose will always be tied up with reproduction and not civilization-altering achievement; now that this purpose has been largely removed, what do they have left? … [M]en are as useful as ever, whereas women’s role as child-bearer is rapidly becoming unnecessary and in many cases even harmful.
Babies? We don’t need no stinkin babies!
And if after a few years of childless Children of Men-style dystopia we male humans decide that maybe it would be good if we, collectively, had a few kids, well, by then some clever dude will have invented an artificial womb. And then, ladies, you’re toast! (Which we dudes will be eating a lot of in the future, by the way, as actual cooking, not to mention sammich-making, is for bitches.) As Mr. Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology explains:
Before … our current level of technology, women were in complete and total control of reproduction. Women could get knocked up by one guy and claim another guy is the dad and there was no way of knowing what the truth was. First came increased scientific knowledge about reproduction. Before that the process of reproduction would have been considered to be almost magical given women room to exercise total control. This lessened women’s control over reproduction. In the 20th century came paternity testing so men could know without a doubt who a child’s father is. Now women have no room to hide except that the law allows for paternity fraud. Eventually we will have artificial wombs which will allow men to have children without women if they so choose. The artificial womb represents control of reproduction being wrestled away from women. This is a pretty direct progression of how women become less and less necessary in reproduction.
Of course, there’s that whole issue of actually raising the little buggers. But don’t worry, dudes are totally better at this, too!
[W]omen’s role as child bearer in many cases is becoming harmful. … All the pathologies caused by single mothers do not need to be repeated here. Beyond single motherhood take a look at younger women in their 20s. How many of them would you really trust to be mothers even if divorce wasn’t an issue? Take a look at the current crop of teenage girls, and it’s clear they will be even worse for motherhood than women currently in their 20s. Don’t forget all the misandry that these women carry which will have a negative impact on any sons you might have with them. … All things being equal the two parent family is probably better for raising children, but all things are not equal. Because of divorce the two parent family can become single motherhood at the drop of a hat. Single fatherhood from the beginning is better than that. Even without divorce women are increasingly unqualified to be mothers. … We are getting to a point where single fatherhood may be the superior system of raising children, especially when it comes to raising sons.
In your face, ladies! Moms suck! DudeMoms rule!!!!
Of course, not all dudes want to be single fathers. As savethemales notes in the comments on Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology,
Robogirls can take the place of mothers and assist in raising children for the biological dads who employed artificial wombs in the labs to incubate their babies. Personally, I never want kids and frankly, what reason is there? Children and women are a big liability. Actuarial escape velocity and transhumanism will be the answer and logical choice over procreation for many men.
I have no idea what he just said there, but I am totally 100% behind it. Except maybe for the part about Robogirls. I mean, how do we know for sure that Robogirls aren’t going to teach robomisandry to our dude-children?
Personally, I wouldn’t trust my artificial-womb-born dude-children to anyone but a RoboDudeMom.
Push.
Your.
Luck.
xD
@Holly so it is! :3 It took me a second to figure it out xD
Ha ha! I guess the moment is over. I wanted to say thanks for giving me what I asked for, but was kind of standing back in awe for a minute…
Ami: OMG, I love that turtle cover! *downloads to make macro for LJ*
Where I live in rural Texas, we have land tortoises that tend to migrate around in the spring (mating season), adn I’m always stopping on the backroads to move them across (less change of getting smashed). And when we take our dogs on walks, they love to bark menacingly at the tortoise (I think they think it will make it run, and it’s just sitting there going ha, I’m safe inside here you stupid canids).
Skyal: OK, that was absolutely incredible stuff about what fetuses learn in the womb–I mean, I knew about people playing music and stuff, but that….wow. People are so amazingly awesome in how we work.
Dont’be silly! It would be a few short steps from sexbots i.e. women androids programmed to respond to male sexual cues and arousal/stimulation/orgasm sequences on one hand, and full-fledged “wifebots” who could convincingly simulate the many levels of mutual interactions, not only on a sexual level, but covering the full rqnge of emotions. impressions,and behaviors characteristic of a healthy, sensitive, perceptive, and empathic human female at her BEST!
The rest of them could go go hell, as far as I am concerned!
The robo-woman’s CPUs would have incalculable (by early XXI century standards) data storage and memory for all manner of domestic and homemaking specialties, and for nanny programs of enough sophistication that she wil be able to care for, nurse, and demonstrate affection for children far better than the dried out, embittered, envy-and-equality ridden hags–who often see motherhood as a form of slavery–which characterised women for the past few generations! Fewer and fewer men are going for them, even without the cybernetic alternatives suggested here which are the material of today’s rather outre science fiction.
Human female DNA may be too complex to produce artificially even then, but every population group, even today has more females than males, and it should be a relatively easy matter to capture, store, and insure reproductive DNA and RNA from them, and nurture it in a environments simultating the human female womb, so that healthy children can be grown. This will provide for the continuation of homo sapiens, especially when you consider that most “women” who have grown up since WWII are imitative of men, too over-educated, and aren’t breeding the way that they should anyhow! I don’t know what will become of them in a male-positive cyberworld, but as they don’t care too much about us, why should I care about them?
Obsolescence–not frailty–thy name is woman!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
PS–Possibly a few especially attractive, alluring, and submissive biological women, who have resisted the plague of feminist and egalitrarian brainwashing and conditoning, MIGHT be kept for (very successful) men for pleasure, breeding, and domestic purposes, and those women may additionally contribute female DNA for reproductive purposes–with their owner”s consent–of course–DKM
@DKM:
Soo… Androids who have a couple procdures and sequences to emulate orgasm are only a few steps away from fully emulating the emotions and behaviors of a complex human being? Right… You obviously don’t work in the AI field…
“most “women” who have grown up since WWII are imitative of men, too over-educated, and aren’t breeding the way that they should anyhow!”
…
O___O
<.<
You know what? Screw it. Have fun with your future fantasies, while the rest of us enjoy our lives in the present.
You know, for a group that doesn’t “breed enough”, somehow women (and a few genderqueers and trans dudes) managed to birth over six billion humans that wander around the earth all the time. There are plenty of humans out and about. With population numbers like approx. 6,775,235,700 how will the human species ever survive?
Look at population trendlines over the past half-century in the USA, Canada, Japan, Russia and Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, and even Chinese and Pacific rim asian populations since about 1970…
There seems to be a connection between long-term decline in fertility rates and access to female education and work outside the home, but you didn’t hear it from me!
It is true that the overall population of homo sapiens is still growing, but the over 55 (steriles) is growing fastest of all, and birthrates are BELOW replacement level in the above mentioned areas. While straight out linear projection rarely gives accurate data over long (multicentury) periods of time, clearly one can safely stand by one’s current observation that our species is dying out, even as the gross figures (which don’t take account of age/fertility demographics)showing some superficial and temporary increases which darksidecat cited.
Add to that, the decline in homo sapiens genetic value due to e.g. environmental damage, sustained malnourishment along with the toxic food and drug consumption (especially among women and children), underbreeding by (over-educated?), saving and thrifty, intelligent, healthy, and basically future oriented populations and overbreeding among people who can’t raise goldfish, much less families!
I could go on, but I think that I have made the point that if current trends continue, not even for the two or three centuries necessary for the necessary R&D to make the above scenario realistic–and yes, kirbywarp, I stand corrected–you are correct, there WOULD be a large number of difficult and expensive steps necessary in both programming and autoheuristics, which I understated, involved in the development or (evolution) from the merely simulation of sex-interactive behaviors of the sexbots to the far more complex behaviors of an all round “wifebot”. Thank you for reminding me!
The fact is, with half a dozen or more generations of decline, we WON’T have the wherewithall, either genetic or economic, to build wattle huts or usable spears, much less the labs, assembly centers, hospitals, insurance and maintainence facilities, software testing and debugging facilities, etc. to liberate men from feminist tyranny as suggested above.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
PS-Sometimes I get a little caught up in my writing. Modern women stink so badly that even a fantasy of distant future (where we won’t be around anyhow) seems preferable!-DKM
God, when can we start phasing out David K. Mellers? It wouldn’t take much to replace them. Zero learning capability, zero social intelligence, very limited perception, no creativity. Everything David K. Mellers produce is simple and formulaic, following some alternate but easily grocked form of “logic.” Thing is, I can’t see why we’d waste any energy producing our own David K. Mellers, when the David K. Mellers that exist are so pointless and wasteful as it is. Maybe a modified version of a David K. Meller could actually be useful in some way instead of always repetitive, wrong, and tedious. Or maybe they could just be phased out and not replaced. Hmmmmm *strokes long beard thoughtfully*
@Meller, POC (including black folks) are the same species as me, fyi. And poor and third world folks are also *gasp* not genetically inferior. Your racist fearmongering has little impact on those of us who are not massive racists.
Also worth noting, China’s population growth being less than replacement rate is a specifically intentional and planned response to over-crowding. It’s not like they implemented the “one family, one child policy” by accident not guessing it would reduce birth rates.
Besides, higher birth rates are not nearly as necessary in countries with solid access to medical care. High infant and child mortality rates feed into high birth rates-people are far more likely to have six babies if that is what it takes to ensure having one live to adulthood. Having fewer offspring in times of overcrowding is a perfectly legitimate evolutionary strategy (it is found most commonly in species with few to no natural predators) so long as those few can be reasonably expected to survive into adulthood. Not to mention the fact that the areas you cite are areas that use a massively disproportionate share of resources. A woman in the Congo could have twenty kids and they would not use up as much energy or cause as much pollution as a single kid in the US.
I love that he signed his PS right after signing his name on his post (right above the PS) xD
*assimilates new data*
>:3
Victor Cachat may be even more awesome than Honor herself…
“I think it’s simpler to assume that the vast overwhelming majority of those people who post dozens or hundreds of comments on blogs and forums, who set up popular blogs, etc to advocate retrograde shit … actually believe that shit.”
I don’t think the stuff you read on the Internet is an accurate representation of society or what people really think (otherwise we’re doomed).
Take the hundreds of thousands hateful comments on articles about the desasters in Japan like “That’s what you get for pearl harbor. Karma is a bitch!!”. There were even blog entries and you probably remember the video of a girl thanking God that her prayers to punish the Japanese atheists were heard (ok, that was a joke).
Luckily nobody took that too seriously, nobody is out there writing articles complaining how bigoted and hateful many Americans are (ok, they didn’t ignore the YouTube video and were fooled).
I’m not saying that all these “MRA-posters” are feminist sockpuppets or trolls, no, probably a good percentage of those posters really has some issues with women.
But if you are (1) frustrated and (2) you can get away with everything you say, you are inclined to write some really dark, mind-boggling, bizarre and cynical stuff. Anonymity or pseudonymity isn’t natural, it doesn’t show you the real character of somebody. So no, I do not think most of them really “believe that shit”.
“My point was more that just because someone has been taught a bunch of stuff in high school that was discovered in the seventeenth century, doesn’t mean he can sneer at ancient Greeks who were actually doing surprisingly well with the tools at their disposal. Personally, while I understand calculus, I could never fault someone for not managing to invent it.
But that’s cause I’m a silly wimminz and I can’t automatically take credit for everything ever done by men. Any man is automatically credited with the innovations of Newton and Leibniz and can justifiably look down his nose at poor old Zeno.”
Yes, but have you ever met a man that said something like me but meant it serious?
I just wanted to write something really ignorant. Especially if you know that it was only in the 19th century that calculus was finally made rigorous by Cauchy and Weierstrass.
That said, I honestly think that many Greek mathematicians are overrated. That’s simply because of our eurocentric viewpoint. Indian mathematicians had a modern concept of algebra when at the same time the Greeks were stuck with geometrical methods.
And where would we be without India’s number system (the positional notation)?
“Moving Rows Paradox (aka the Stadium Paradox), you really can start to look at Zeno as trying to hash out relativity of motion, as well as the mathematical problem of infinite progresses.”
No, honestly; if Zeno didn’t try to challenge the idea that there is a smallest amount of time and a smallest amount of space (= space “atoms” and time “atoms”) with this paradox, he doesn’t look so smart.
Marc, I know that the people I write about here aren’t representative of society at large; they’re a small minority. They do, though, seem fairly representative of MRAs online. I’m just kind of fascinated by them.
I’m pretty certain that the overwhelming majority of them are quite sincere in their beliefs. They’re not, generally speaking, driven by a desire to shock anyone; the audience for most of these posts/comments/whatever is generally other people who share the same ideas. They get really angry when they’re challenged. When people go to these sites and challenge them, they’re often banned.
If someone goes on Yahoo Answers, say, and says some outrageously misogynistic thing, there’s a good chance they’re trolling, spewing crap because they’re anonymous and can get away with it. On The Spearhead, not so much.
“I’m just kind of fascinated by them.”
Difficult to believe. I suspect other motives.
“If someone goes on Yahoo Answers, say, and says some outrageously misogynistic thing, there’s a good chance they’re trolling, spewing crap because they’re anonymous and can get away with it. On The Spearhead, not so much.”
Maybe the Spearhead… but isitnormal.com?
Come on.
Well, they annoy me as well.
I’ve posted more than 300 posts here. Only one of them is about something on isitnormal.com, and, yes, I think in that particular case the guy posting the question was sincere. A lot of the stuff posted there seems sincere. It’s not all trolls. .
Heck, it’s not all trolls on Yahoo Answers either.
Try READING posts before criticizing them! Nowhere did I make any reference to racial “genetic inferiority”, for example. I emphasised that a shrinking population over generations of time was more likely to lack the genetic diversity–as well as the scientific, medical, and entrepreneurial knowledge base–to accomplish what a race, nation,or other community with a larger population does. Over two or three centuries, this would have serious, perhaps irreversible consequences, regardless of the intentions behind the shrinkage. On the contrary, I emphasised that this is a worldwide phenomenon, effecting the future of entire Human race, not any one race, ethicity, nation, tribe, etc. I also emphasised that the economic, social, and political collapse would be worldwide, and COULD not be escaped by one race or another, whether they were “superior” or “inferior”–your words–anywhere in the world, as he homo sapiens genome itself would be irreversibly compromised!
“Higher birthrates are not as necessary to countries with access to good medical care”. True, but “good medical care”, and even ANY medical care at all, will disappear with a shrinking knowledge base, shrinking capital both savings and information) base, and shrinking technological base! The people born today are, in many ways, living off the savings of the past. When this is used up, and when the available information and technology becomes unusable, or perhaps even forgotten, results will probably mimic today;s Congo, where, whether the people “use the energy or cause the pollution” observed in more prosperous areas won’t matter any more, especially when one considers that millions of people are alive in areas like the Congo because of money, food,and medicine remitted from people native to those regions who work overseas (often working from the same regions you uncritically condemn for overuse of energy and “pollution”. Also, underground economies (economic activity taking place outside governmental channels by people denied livelihoods elsewhere, NOT from savings, information, or entrepreneurial innovations emerging from the regions in questions! They may even be much worse off then the contemporary Congo, because of the residual capital and technology keeping some people alive, and even breeding,, mentioned above, would be lacking, and long-forgotten.
Lastly, intentions don’t alter facts–or consequences! China today is experiencing many social imbalances becuase of it’s much touted one-child policy (including a widespread gender imbalance in favor of males)–for all of you defenders of ‘wimminzrights’ here at manboobz)! There is also an aging of China’s population in a country which, while it has displayed remarkable economic and technological growth to its credit, but they still have a long way to go…especially among rural chinese. Also we shouldn’t forget the hundreds of millions of Chinese in the interior who have been sadly bypased by the incredible growth of the Coast and river valleys, and–possibly of some interest to you,since YOU broached the subject–the fate of the many millions of non-Chinese minorities (Uighurs, Koreans, Tibetians, Mongols, et al) who are excluded from many opportunities for upward mobility in their regions–to say nothing of China itself–in a bigoted and RACIST way that would probably put the worst of the Jim Crow South or Apartheid South Africa to shame any day of the week! NOW, where’s the talk about “racism”? The same aging of the population, with the same debilitating long-term effects, has to affect many other countries as well in the coming century, unless patriarchy, large familes, and female domesticity starts coming back into style!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
PS–Bee, other people, even if they don’t agree with my posts, and even when I stand corrected on occasion, –see previous post about ‘wifebots’–, still notice that I have something to say! If you can’t understand me, when I write in very clear and understandable English, the fault must be yours! Learn to read and write, and then get back to me. DKM
@DKM:
Gah, seriously.. Can’t you write one post that isn’t an essay? First, you’ve specifically said that if white men don’t keep hold of their place in society, the USSA will become a third world country that will collapse. You didn’t say the words “genetic inferiority,” but that’s exactly what you meant.
Technology and knowledge isn’t lost with smaller populations. We currently have over 6 billion people in the world. If that number doesn’t grow higher, or grows smaller to 5 or 4 billion, we will still have the academic papers, books, schools, and so forth. Knowledge does not reside solely in the heads of the people who use it.
Don’t have much to say on China, since I don’t know much about it. But this:
“If you can’t understand me, when I write in very clear and understandable English”
How clear your writing is is judged by the readers, not the author. If we think your posts amount to verbal vomit, it doesn’t matter one bit how good you think you are, what you are trying to say isn’t coming through.
David K. Meller, please know that I understand what you write; I merely find what you write to be tedious and wrong. I also acknowledge that you have something to say; I just find that what you have to say is tedious and wrong.
Whoops! A zillion apologies for the misunderstanding!
ithiliana I actually forgot a few things, but I can’t remember what now. lol
I know everyone’s got way off topic, but there’s another huge issue with the artifical womb idea; the fact the fetus needs continuous nutrients and oxygen coming in & waste going out through a system (the placenta) designed to remove the nutrients & oxygen from the maternal blood stream & deposit the fetal waste into the blood of the mother. I really don’t see how something could be created which would replicate that system. Especially since it would have to use the placenta as it’s actually part of the baby.
The other issue is, it would only be able to be used if the embryo were implanted into it. It couldn’t be used to transfer an embryo already growing in a woman’s uterus. Transferring an already implanted fetus would undoubtedly result in the death of the fetus.
I love that DKM signs his PS’s.