"Why can't we hate men?"

[Sabrina]

When it comes to sexbots I think we are going to see advanced in three areas that will create something similar before an actual robot becomes a reality: computers capable of realistic human language generation in real time, so you could have a (bounded and superficial) conversation in which it can crack funny jokes and simulate real emotions. Text to speech that’s indistinguishable from a human talking, and realistic real time video image generation (of a face say) so you can have a conversation with what looks and feels like a real person.

Probably it would just be a slightly more advanced version of Alexa, filling that role, but given those attributes it will also be the first widely adopted “sexbot”

Some guy already linked his Alexa to a mild shock device he used (in the BDSM fashion) on his lovers; all he'd have to say is "Alexa, punish" and Alexa would respond, "has the (insert swear term for female dog here) been bad?" If the person responded yes, Alexa would trigger the device to administer a shock. So we're getting closer.

To get back to the subject at hand though, clearly assistive devices for sexual pleasure are de rigeur at this point, or the sex toy industry wouldn't be doing such a booming business. I've seen devices capable of simulating oral sex on a woman for sale on one website (although it's anyone's guess if the actual result really DOES simulate the act; I don't know anyone who's tried one, but the reviews gave it a pretty high rating, so, YMMV) as well as a multitude of other devices tailored to both sexes, so I don't think we're going to necessarily hold off on the possibility of developing sexbots for both sexes (I've read or seen multiple depictions of futuristic societies where a robot/android is shown as capable of having sexual intercourse with humans; hell, Star Trek had it in an earlier episode of TNG for Pete's sake where Data got it on with a junior crewmember). What I would question though, is whether we are going to be capable of building a sexbot, for lack of a better term, that can totally replace a functional relationship with a significant other (minus procreation, of course). You can program a robot/android to say "I love you" all the live-long day, but the emotions just aren't going to be there for real, and I think most humans, after the novelty wore off, would feel the lack of that emotional connection keenly. We are social creatures by nature, after all; by and large we will always work to seek out those emotional connections with other living beings.

I have a hard time believing that there's actually someone out there who truly thinks women are "brainwashed" into being heterosexual when it's impossible (absent scientific intervention that doesn't exist for humans yet, as far as I know) to procreate without using material from the opposite sex. We're hard-wired due to our evolution to pass on our genes to the next generation, and as far as I'm concerned, a person can be born heterosexual the same way they can be born homosexual, asexual, or any other level of sexuality that's been identified (and whatever ones there are that haven't). If it were our natural state to procreate with the same gender, we'd have evolved that way; since we haven't, I think we can state with nearly certain confidence that the notion of being "brainwashed" into one sexual state of being over another is absolutely bloody stupid. I sincerely hope that woman's crackpot theories are being shot down via evidence.

 

[Hellbound]

Frankly, I think they can be shot down without evidence; considering they were presented in the same manner

 

[d4m10n]

Frankly, I think they can be shot down without evidence; considering they were presented in the same manner

Where were they thus presented? I don't have access to most gender studies journals, but I can always visit the uni library.

 

[Hellbound]

Where were they thus presented? I don't have access to most gender studies journals, but I can always visit the uni library.

Let me try a bit more clarity:

1. My comment was, I would hope obviously, a response to the immediately previous post.

2. The phrasing, matching that of the last sentence in said previous post, should indicate that I was speaking specifically to the final paragraph.

3. The idea of women being having to be brainwashed into being heterosexual was presented in this thread, sans evidence.

4. The addition of the smiley should have indicated that this was an attempt at humor; admittedly with a dash of seriousness underneath (we don't need evidence to rebuke that presented without it), but mostly for humor.

 

[d4m10n]

Fair enough, Hellbound.

Given that some radical feminists are indeed arguing that heterosexuality is a product of heteronormativity (a process of inculturation) we could theoretically interact with the arguments they have actually put forward.

 

[Hellbound]

Given that some radical feminists are indeed arguing that heterosexuality is a product of heteronormativity (a process of inculturation) we could theoretically interact with the arguments they have actually put forward.

Great! If you'd like to post some, I'm sure many would like to discuss them.

In a serious mode, I'm sure there is some truth to that. Many studies have shown that sexuality is far less a binary thing than a range, from strict homosexuality through bi-sexuality and on to strict heterosexuality. I do believe culture tends to push individuals towards a binary set (homo or hetero, no in-between).

However, that's a much different animal from assuming that heterosexuality can only be the result of brainwashing.

ETA: And I think we've probably drifted enough off-topic on this that if you wish to continue a new thread would be advisable

 

[Ziggurat]

I have a hard time believing that there's actually someone out there who truly thinks women are "brainwashed" into being heterosexual when it's impossible (absent scientific intervention that doesn't exist for humans yet, as far as I know) to procreate without using material from the opposite sex.

You may be having a hard time believing it because you may be expecting rationality. Yet there are indeed academic feminists (and not a few) who say precisely this. Rationality is not actually a prerequisite in the field.

If it were our natural state to procreate with the same gender, we'd have evolved that way; since we haven't, I think we can state with nearly certain confidence that the notion of being "brainwashed" into one sexual state of being over another is absolutely bloody stupid. I sincerely hope that woman's crackpot theories are being shot down via evidence.

For the most part, those theories are not being shot down, or even challenged. This is for a combination of reasons. I understand some of them, but probably not all of them.

One is that most people are simply unaware of what insanity goes on in academic feminism. You can't counter what you don't know exists. Even most people who don't like "feminism" don't know what the academic feminists are getting up to.

Another is that academic traditionalists have generally tried to respect the separation of academic disciplines. A physics professor will not generally criticize psychology, or vice versa. Feminists are not academic traditionalists, though, so they don't respect such boundaries, and try (with startling success) to invade other disciplines. Which makes the fight within academia asymmetric.

Another is that feminist academics have weaponized gender issues sufficiently that arguing against them gets portrayed as inherently sexist, regardless of the validity of the arguments involved. Why argue against their nonsense when you'll just get personally attacked for doing so? The risk/reward ratio is very unfavorable for most academics.

And politics comes into it as well. Feminist academics are leftists. If you're on the left (which most academics are, across fields), then attacking feminist academics is attacking an ally. People are reluctant to do that, even when they disagree on the specifics. This is a general human failing, not unique to the left, but it's the left doing it in this specific case.

 

[pharphis]

When discussing these topics with people online I'm routinely told I should "take a women's studies class" and that my understanding of feminism is allegedly based on key popular examples like Big Red or Anita Sarkeesian, even when I refer to academics, lawyers or politicians (or their resulting policies ie Duluth Model)

Yes, I'm aware of those figures and they are the kind of people that generic anti- and non-feminists are aware of. But I also have some awareness of what academic feminists do and say, and it's not pretty (when it's coherent - sometimes it's just incoherent). The example from the WaPo article is just an example of one of the academics being honest with herself in public, because it is if not fashionable it's at least not too controversial to spew such bile towards men. Somehow it's considered "punching up" even though she holds more power and "earns" more income than the majority of men.

I'm fairly anti-feminist so I would consider her a radical feminist, but not too far away from the average feminist when it comes to those in academia. I think even though a minority of the population calls themselves feminist to begin with, the vast majority of them have no knowledge about the academics, and aren't familiar with the counter arguments (especially in regards to men's issues, which are usually framed as still being "patriarchy").

So in terms of the population she probably only makes up <1% of it, but the moderates typically blindly defend "academic feminists" and their activism so it goes unchecked. This is probably true for lots of relatively fringe political factions.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm fairly anti-feminist so I would consider her a radical feminist, but not too far away from the average feminist when it comes to those in academia.

I have some doubts as to whether she self-identifies as such. As I mentioned above, radical_feminist^WP is a scholarly term of art with a circumscribed meaning.

As to whether she is representative of mainstream feminist scholarship, well, t's really hard to say. So far I've perused a couple of her pieces online:

http://signsjournal.org/inaugural-editorial-thinking-and-doing-feminism

http://www.georgesclaudeguilbert.com/walters1.pdf

Seems fairly run-of-the-mill, AFAICT.

ETA:
My personal heuristic for feminist scholarship is the same one I use with Christian apologetics - far better to focus on specific claims made by specific interlocutors than to try to characterize a vast and often incoherent movement.

 

[pharphis]

I have some doubts as to whether she self-identifies as such. As I mentioned above, radical_feminist^WP is a scholarly term of art with a circumscribed meaning.

As to whether she is representative of mainstream feminist scholarship, well, t's really hard to say. So far I've perused a couple of her pieces online:

http://signsjournal.org/inaugural-editorial-thinking-and-doing-feminism

http://www.georgesclaudeguilbert.com/walters1.pdf

Seems fairly run-of-the-mill, AFAICT.

ETA:
My personal heuristic for feminist scholarship is the same one I use with Christian apologetics - far better to focus on specific claims made by specific interlocutors than to try to characterize a vast and often incoherent movement.

true!

 

[luchog]

the vast majority of them have no knowledge about the academics,

That's because academic feminism, particularly "Critical Theory" feminism, is a splinter of a splinter, and has little to no following outside the narrow, insular world of academia.

So in terms of the population she probably only makes up <1% of it, but the moderates typically blindly defend "academic feminists" and their activism so it goes unchecked.

That has not been my experience. My experience is that moderate feminists are more often likely to dismiss or ignore the more abstruse and radical fringes than defend them. Quite a few are not even really aware that they exist, or consider them a right-wing boogeyman until real-world examples are provided.

 

[pharphis]

That's because academic feminism, particularly "Critical Theory" feminism, is a splinter of a splinter, and has little to no following outside the narrow, insular world of academia.




That has not been my experience. My experience is that moderate feminists are more often likely to dismiss or ignore the more abstruse and radical fringes than defend them. Quite a few are not even really aware that they exist, or consider them a right-wing boogeyman until real-world examples are provided.

Let me clarify what I mean. I mostly agree with you.

When people defend "feminism" using the "not real feminism" or similar defenses they are often both showing their ignorance of what feminists in power believe and do, and defending an ideal that they presume academics also hold up (gender equality without all the bigotry baggage). I think this is partly ignorance of what feminists actually do and say, but also an attachment to a label (ie politics in general) that makes people generally unwilling to accept radicals as part of one's own "side", for lack of a better word.

That said, I do think that although academic feminism is very narrow, they are teaching students, informing university (and other policies outside of the university) in a mostly negative fashion. Just because almost no one reads their literature and "only" tens of thousands of students each year take their classes doesn't mean their influence is negligible, or that they can be waived away as "not real feminists".

I was happy to see most people here disagreeing with the article I linked. Some have defended aspects of it, which is fine. I think most of that defense is based on century-old feminist propaganda and ignorance/dismissal of the other side of the equation (ie men's issues) but I like seeing discussion.

 

[luchog]

When people defend "feminism" using the "not real feminism" or similar defenses they are often both showing their ignorance of what feminists in power believe and do, and defending an ideal that they presume academics also hold up (gender equality without all the bigotry baggage).

Sorry, did you just use "in power" and "academics" in the same sentence? 'Cause... no.

I think this is partly ignorance of what feminists actually do and say, but also an attachment to a label (ie politics in general) that makes people generally unwilling to accept radicals as part of one's own "side", for lack of a better word.

No, it's entirely realizing that just because someone happens to share some superficial similarities, doesn't mean that they're necessarily on one's side. Horseshoe theory and all that. Extremists resemble each other, despite their different worldviews, more than they resemble moderates.

That said, I do think that although academic feminism is very narrow, they are teaching students, informing university (and other policies outside of the university) in a mostly negative fashion. Just because almost no one reads their literature and "only" tens of thousands of students each year take their classes doesn't mean their influence is negligible, or that they can be waived away as "not real feminists".

I think you're dramatically overstating the number of people who 1) actually take their classes, and 2) actually come away substantially influenced by them. Aside from a smattering of jargon and a few of the less whackjob concepts (such as intersectionality), the Critical Theory feminists can count very little actual influence on mainstream feminism.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Aside from a smattering of jargon and a few of the less whackjob concepts (such as intersectionality), the Critical Theory feminists can count very little actual influence on mainstream feminism.

When you say Critical Theory, I assume you mean what is sometimes called "postmodern critical theory" in the Anglosphere?

 

[luchog]

When you say Critical Theory, I assume you mean what is sometimes called "postmodern critical theory" in the Anglosphere?

It's directly related, insofar as critical theory feminism is an outgrowth of postmodernism and Maxism, with its emphasis on subjective experience over systematic and scientific approaches to knowledge and policy. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/critical.htm

 

[d4m10n]

Aside from a smattering of jargon and a few of the less whackjob concepts (such as intersectionality), the Critical Theory feminists can count very little actual influence on mainstream feminism.

I'm guessing you don't read Freethought Blogs.

 

[luchog]

I'm guessing you don't read Freethought Blogs.

You're actually claiming that FTB is characteristic of the mainstream? Really?

Last I checked, it was a minuscule handful of fanatics and trolls who aren't even consistent with each other, let alone anything resembling the mainstream.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're actually claiming that FTB is characteristic of the mainstream? Really?

What counts as mainstream?

Would somebody who, say, publishes in a major newspaper count as mainstream?

 

[d4m10n]

You're actually claiming that FTB is characteristic of the mainstream?

Mainstream feminism (at the intersection of feminism and skepticism) yes, of course. Can you think of a more mainstream collection of freethinkers or skeptics who are focused on promoting feminism?

ETA: Maybe these folks?

https://twitter.com/skepchicks/status/583286744302379008

 

[sadhatter]

I find it so strange when the "we could make babies without men" comment comes out as if it is some looming threat worth watching out for. It just screams of sadness and impotent misplaced rage.

And it ignores the fact that if society ever got that far (complete gender war to the point of needing a work around for breeding) men could easily resort to much more low tech methods of maintaining numbers.

The fact that I need to give that as a counterpoint shows how ********** up any discourse has gotten. It's just all about saying the most party line towing thing possible now.