The other day we took a look at a Redditor who calls himself AntiFeministMedia. He does not seem to like the ladies very much. Indeed, in some of the posts of his I quoted, he went so far as to say that women are animals, not humans, and suggested that men should pretty much have the final say in anything involving reproduction (as clearly the women have been doing a terrible job of it).
So one might wonder: why have ladies at all? This is a thought that has crossed the mind of AntiFeministMedia more than a few times. And he’s got some ideas about how it could be done.
As he points out in this comment, men have known all along that ladies is trouble. But now, thanks to superior male brains, we finally have the technology to do something about it. Today, fleshlights! Tomorrow, the womb!
Men have known women are the problem right throughout history, and to deny it just goes to show how ignorant and stupid you are.
Religion’s, culture’s, all have there warnings about women.
And all these things will be known again. The dots will be joined, and its my hope that after this current fuck up of allowing feminism to take root, men will never allow it again.
I actually think its time men went foreward alone. We have the hi-technology now to clone little boys into the future, soon we will have female androids with artificial wombs. Identical to women in almost every way, except for the animal nature…
Women should be replaced by better technology.
Consider the many fine benefits of this plan:
If men didnt have to live in this human-female environment, but instead was guaranteed in having his sexual needs met, and his genes live on into the future, there would be a lot less conflict of all kinds.
This two-party system of male and female has served its purpose (in the most brutal way), we are rapidly approaching a time where things could be radically different.
Tell me more about this brave new world of which you speak, in which men can live their lives free of bitches:
Cloning science and female androids may just solve that woman problem for us.
I wouldnt advocate killing women, certainly not, but a gradual fade-out, allow women to live out their natural lives, while we transition to the new technology.
No need for anything as unpleasant as killing, no. Just the elimination of one gender by the other through a little “fade-out,” like they have in the movies. Nothing objectionable about this, not at all.
If you’ve followed any of these links back to the original comments, you’ll see that AntiFeministMedia, like most truly original thinkers, has gotten some resistance to his ideas — even from the normally forward-looking thinkers of the Men’s Rights subreddit. And a few downvotes!
But some of his comments are so clearly and obviously correct, so pithy and wise, that they get upvotes. Like this one, suggesting that female demand for iPads and mobile phones is one of the central driving forces behind war:
Well its nice to hear her comment that western women themselves have been complicit in foreign wars and the rape of native women by soldiers, so that companies can obtain gold and other precious metals for Ipads and moble phones which women seem to like so much.
Oh you evil women with your iPads and mobile phones! We men are of course immune to the devilish allure of computer technology. Indeed, I’m typing this blog post on an old Smith-Corona Galaxie Portable Typewriter.
And have five arms and purple hair and get around only by moonwalking.
Oh lordy lordy. Ballgame and his little friend the False Equivalence Fairy are here to wag their tiny fingers and gently chide us for being so uncivil. Ballgame, you do not fool me. I know your shtick, as I know Toysoldiers’, Hugh Ristik’s, Schala’s, etc. I’d actually prefer an overtly hostile manchild like MrAl over a smarmy creep like yourself… at least you know where you stand with him.
I happen to have a (somewhat) more than passing interest in artificial wombs, along with transhumanism generally, which is enough to coax me out of my lurking. I have to ask, Mr. Futrelle, if I may query into your own personal opinions/policy suggestions, in reference to this:
Just the elimination of one gender by the other through a little “fade-out,” like they have in the movies.
Assuming for the purposes of argument that artificial womb/sexbot/etc. technology advances to the point where it’s cheap and efficient enough to be an effective alternative to sexual reproduction, and taking into account the widespread preference for male babies over female babies in countries such as China and India (and to a lesser extent, admittedly a *much* lesser extent, the US as well), doesn’t such a fade-out seem almost inevitable, at least in certain cultures? Do you think this makes artificial womb and/or sexbot technology problematic in and of itself, that is to say, they will necessarily accelerate the demographic skew towards males we’re seeing in the aforementioned countries and others? Or do you believe these technologies will end up having much less of an impact than folks like AntiFeministTech would like to believe, and therefore aren’t much to worry about, either from an MRA or a feminist perspective?
@Pecunium
“I already mentioned Horowitz. I am willing to bet that a significant portion of the student population at every school Daly went to would have been against her”
Yet I again I’d like to go on record as saying she still DID in fact speak at colleges as did the rest of her ilk. While none of anyone such as AntiFeministMedia has ever lectured at colleges. Do you see the difference?
Also for every, “protester” as you say there was there were women in those colleges who aplauded or simply laughed at how funny it was.
Thats the misandry I speak of thats indoctrinated into society. It’s acceptable these women are allowed to lecture at college while a man with a regendered version of that same rhetoric would never be allowed to set foot in a college to lecture.
@Wanderer
“Assuming for the purposes of argument that artificial womb/sexbot/etc. technology advances to the point where it’s cheap and efficient enough to be an effective alternative to sexual reproduction, and taking into account the widespread preference for male babies over female babies in countries such as China”
And the feminist policy of abortion has now come back to bite them on the ass big time. Do any of you know anything about the situation men are facing in China right now? I think they’re running like a 3-2 male to female ratio. Article after article in China speaks about men living in self imposed dungeons to save money so they can afford a girl. Women in China are literally demanding a man have a house before even considering him as a potential. Men and women both know the score in China. They got real trouble out there.
We’ll have to agree to disagree here, David.
Um, my whole point here is that this would be silly (i.e. Daly > significant influence, AFM > virtually no influence).*
No, I was pointing out that you were mocking AFM for having a specific view which just happened to be one that was mirrored by a significant feminist, a feminist that appeared to have been much more influential as a feminist than AFM was as an MRA. Feel free to otherwise mock AFM without mentioning Daly! You have my permission. 🙂
* OK, so I checked AFM’s reddit Alexa rank. “Marginal influence” would probably be more accurate than “no influence.” I don’t think he’s going to be invited to speak at colleges anytime soon, though.
Which is precisely the point, katz. People who are known for their ideas and get invited to speak at (significant numbers of) colleges are not universally reviled … so it’s not really plausible to claim that Daly was universally reviled despite speaking at so many colleges. It’s far more likely she was admired by at least a minority of people at those institutions (just like Horowitz, Coulter, etc.).
I heard a speech by Mary Daly at the public university I attended as an undergrad. The speech was at the Roman Catholic student center and I assume she had been invited by the priests there. (Not so surprising when you consider she was a professor at Boston College.) It wasn’t widely attended and about all I can recall of it was a bit where she poked some fun at the male-only priesthood by calling them cross-dressers. After the speech, I overheard a portion of a conversation with one of the priests, where she was in tears, talking about a report of a particularly vicious rape of a young girl.
If this counts as one of the American colleges where she was invited to speak, it wasn’t an invitation by radical feminists, but the priests in charge of the student center. Granted, one priest later left the priesthood and married a former nun, so he probably wasn’t your average, run-of-the-mill priest.
Well, at this point it’s been many hours and you’ve managed to post about many other things, but the apparently oh-so-easy to find, non-woman-hating blogs that exist all over the manosphere that no one has yet given an example of has shown up. I so believe you! Your penis tells the truth even when you can’t dredge up even a SINGLE example of it.
P.S. Wasn’t trying to get rid of you, just saying put up or shut up. Please feel free to do either.
It’s pretty funny that ballgame can see my posts at FC, but not here. Dave must have me on “ignore” for ballgame.
I’ve tried to explain radicalism to ballgame, but he is on a mission to prove that Feminism Is Bad for Everyone, and likes to ignore everything that suggests he is wrong.
Here’s the thing that makes Daly’s radical views different to AFM’s: when Daly said that women had been oppressed for centuries, that was actually true. Her radical views were a challenge to accepted thinking. They’re political theory. In Daly’s imagined world, women are free to do whatever they want because they are no longer subjugated.
The MRM says that women are in control of society, and are oppressing men. This is not true. AFM’s belief that women are not people is not radical: it’s old. It used to be accepted thinking. Heck, in some parts of the world, it still is. When AFM says “let’s do without women”, he is talking about returning to a system we know existed. And he wants it to be worse. He wants women to be eliminated.
Both of their ideas are never going to be realised: Daly’s because women will never throw the men they love under the Evolutionary bus, AFM’s because technology is never going to replace biology. (Sorry, geeks everywhere. It’s true.)
Feminists control China? Who knew?
I guess they forgot to mention it in the weekly newsletter.
So what exactly is your point, Ballgame? That every time i quote something noxious from an MRA I should also quote something noxious from a feminist?
Why? I mean, I have literally no connection with Daly. I don’t agree with her views; I haven’t even read more than a few isolated quotes from her writings. True, she’s nominally a feminist, but none of the feminists I like and respect are fans of hers. Numerous feminist blogs have critiqued her quite effectively. I don’t really have anything to add to that.
And seriously, if I tried to quote something noxious from a feminist every time I quoted something from an MRA/MGTOWer/PUAer, I would quickly exhaust the supply of noxious feminist quotes. I mean, how many times can I quote Dworkin and Daly? The manosphere generates oodles of noxious shit daily; there are only a handful of rad-fem blogs that spout stuff anywhere near as noxious at that.
And on the question of influence, well, feminism has been and still is much more influential than the MRM. Should I therefore not talk about the MRM at all? I happen to think that bad ideas are bad ideas regardless of how influential they are. And while AntiFeministMedia isn’t terribly influential even within the MRM, he’s not the only one who fantasizes about making women “obsolete” with technology.
http://manboobz.com/category/sexy-robot-ladies/
Um, no, my point was that you’re just going to add requirements until no one can come up with an example and then go “SEE?”
amandajane5, you appear to have overlooked this comment of mine.
Because prior to China becoming the feminist regime that it so obviously is now, boasting a higher rate of females aborted than males, there was no such thing as, for instance, “The Dying Rooms”.
Yep, feminism is to blame for the situation men are facing in China right now, it has nothing to do with centuries-old preference for male babies.
katz: You grossly overestimate your mind-reading abilities.
Wanderer, it’s gonna be a very long time before homo sapiens can dispense with the genetic variability that X chromosomes provide (a ton, which is necessary for our adaptability, protection against sex-linked disease, and survival). Most of the talk I’ve heard from scientists and medical professionals about artificial wombs has been about how they’ll make childbirth easier for women, in particular infertile or older women. So there goes your theory that women will be disempowered by it; if anything, “SMV” theory will cease to apply to women when artificial wombs become widely available. (Shulamith Firestone was a radfem who widely advocated for this kind of reproductive technology on the Marxian grounds that it would put the sexual means of reproduction squarely back in the hands of women).
I can also state with some confidence that the manpower it would take to run human reproduction on the Y-chromosome plus some kind of lab synthesized X would be implausible in practice. It would also render the specimens born from this arrangement almost entirely unable to exist in the real world. They’d have to live in biospheres or something, where there aren’t natural predators or variable climates.
I don’t know why I dignified that post with a reply, but there it is.
No human being is universally reviled. Even Hitler has fans. Douchey nazi fans, but still…
No human being is universally reviled.
Carrot Top?
For some unfathomable reason, I’m going to answer this question in earnest.
In the first place, it’s unlikely/impossible for artificial reproduction to actually replace natural reproduction, since the natural method is not only (sorta) free, but can happen by accident. Consider adoption: it is a route pursued by very few. And artificial insemination, etc, remain only available to rich nations.
In the second place, you seem to be assuming that women “just are” less desirable, at least in those cultures, but culture is mutable. Girls aren’t valued in India because they require an expensive dowry when they’re married, but absent the reproduction aspect, you can’t expect marriage customs to remain the same.
Third, assuming that the womb-tech doesn’t also make all men gay or asexual, there’s going to be a lot of societal pressure not to make women disappear. Returning to dowries, if women got rarer, more men would want to marry each one, making them more “valuable,” lowering (or eliminating or very likely reversing) dowries, making daughters less of a liability, making women more “valuable;” you get the idea.
Finally and most importantly, the main issue is how happy MRAs are at the idea of women disappearing, indicating that they’re predicting it out of a vendetta against women rather than actual futurism.
Well, NF4ever, thanks very much for your response. You don’t have to, er, dignify anything further from me with a response if you don’t want to, but if you’d be willing to educate a layman with an interest in this sort of thing a little further, your response does make me wonder about a couple of other questions:
artificial wombs has been about how they’ll make childbirth easier for women, in particular infertile or older women.
I think I’m misunderstanding something here, but above you also mentioned, a very long time before homo sapiens can dispense with the genetic variability that X chromosomes provide (a ton, which is necessary for our adaptability, protection against sex-linked disease, and survival).
If this is true, would children born from artificial wombs have the issues with adaptability and sex-linked diseases you describe, which would result in them being undesirable for older women or others who may have difficulty taking care of them? Or are the X-chromosome problems and the artificial womb issues two separate things? I think you mean the latter, but I’m not sure, which is why I ask.
Secondly,
I can also state with some confidence that the manpower it would take to run human reproduction on the Y-chromosome plus some kind of lab synthesized X would be implausible in practice. It would also render the specimens born from this arrangement almost entirely unable to exist in the real world. They’d have to live in biospheres or something, where there aren’t natural predators or variable climates.
You say a ‘synthesized’ X. Are you referring to X chromosomes that are completely artifical; “made from scratch,” so to speak? I ask because I’ve heard some MRAs ponder the efficacy of making eggs from stem cells rather than relying on eggs “naturally” produced by women. I don’t know that much about stem cell technology either, so I’m not sure if this is any different from what you were talking about or any more or less dubious.
In any case, thanks again for your response.
(excuse me for double posting, Katz posted his comment while I was typing my first).
Thank you for your response as well, Katz. To address some of your points, particularly this one, which I found interesting–
Girls aren’t valued in India because they require an expensive dowry when they’re married, but absent the reproduction aspect, you can’t expect marriage customs to remain the same.
Third, assuming that the womb-tech doesn’t also make all men gay or asexual, there’s going to be a lot of societal pressure not to make women disappear. Returning to dowries, if women got rarer, more men would want to marry each one, making them more “valuable,” lowering (or eliminating or very likely reversing) dowries, making daughters less of a liability, making women more “valuable;” you get the idea.
Has this started to happen yet? As a few people have mentioned before (including, ironically, NWOslave–er, the NWO stands for New World Order, right? Or is that something else?) men in China and India are already feeling a “bride crunch,” so to speak. Have the cultural stigmas against female babies begun to lessen, in your view (i.e a lessening in dowries and so on), or would other factors beyond a relative scarcity of females be necessary to effect the sort of cultural shifts you describe?
No, stupidhead, I ignored it as it was not on topic. I was not asking about father’s rights activists, nor was Holly. We’re asking for these apparently so easy to find that no one’s been able to find one in the seven or so months manboobz has been around “moderate” and “logical” men’s rights advocates or men going their own stupid fucking way. You do know that if fathers actually petition for custody of their children (which does not happen in most cases) they get it half the time. It’s almost like it’s fair! But whenever asked to give examples of “moderate” or our new troll Samuel’s “hurting” men who just won’t post when there are women around, but we should spend lots of time babying them because of…
Still waiting for those moderate MRAs.