Jun 062011
 

I found this comment at Roissy’s (thanks to namae namka linking to this blog in another comment):

“Why the difference? *Women are reproductively more valuable than men*.”

I wonder how true this is today though. Clearly in today’s world the need for reproduction is very different than before (no need for more hands on the farm, etc.); and, for certain segments of the population society would probably benefit from their non-reproduction.

In fact, 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? Female claims of males becoming increasingly ‘redundant’ are classic cases of projection: men are as useful as ever, whereas women’s role as child-bearer is rapidly becoming unnecessary and in many cases even harmful.

How much longer will women maintain these privileges after reproduction gas little place in society?

Plus, the older privileges were predicated on women’s willingness to become mothers at a young age to bear healthy children for tribe; how many of today’s women fit this description? If you don’t measure up to the job, you shouldn’t get the benefits…

The bold was added by me.  Namae namka responded to that part with a link to my post on feminist paranoia about artificial wombs and other reproductive technologies and with good reason.  Before even 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.

However, there are other angles to what is going on here.  One thing technology has done is allow more babies to survive birth and survive childhood.  Before modern medicine if you wanted 2 or 3 children to survive to adulthood you probably would have to have six or more babies.  Having that many babies was the only way to be sure to enough survived to adulthood.  This is still the case in many places.  If you know that to have 2 or 3 children survive to adulthood, you only need to have 2 or 3 babies, then that’s a lot less time spent on reproduction (and associated child rearing).  And we don’t need to breed more hands to work on the farm either.  This is another angle of how women are less necessary for reproduction.

Knowing this the socon and tradcon call for large families becomes a form of white knighting for women.  Having only 2 or 3 kids nowadays leaves a lot of time before and after children.  What are women doing then?  (Sending women to work is obviously not an answer as the last few decades have shown us.)  Large families are the socon/tradcon attempt to (unconsciously) paper over this problem.

The last part of the comment that I bolded says that women’s role as child bearer in many cases is becoming harmful.  This is obviously true.  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.  I have taken flak for talking about alternatives for men to have children such as artificial wombs in the future and surrogate mothers in places like the Rotunda clinic in India.  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.  And if you have sons you will be introducing misandry to them in your home.  We are getting to a point where single fatherhood may be the superior system of raising children, especially when it comes to raising sons.

  49 Responses to “Women’s Role As Child-Bearer Is Rapidly Becoming Unnecessary And In Many Cases Even Harmful”

  1. I like what you’re saying here, and think for the most part it’s spot on. Women have lost their place in the traditional order of things, and somewhat vengefully, are now attempting to strip males of their place also.

    However, I can’t accept large families are a form of white knighting, as you suggest. Children are a huge investment of time and effort, and any woman who has a large family will find it virtually impossible to have a career and life outside the home. While keeping women in the home may be considered by some MRA’s to be a form of benefit or wealth transferral, it does clearly create dependence on the man and restrict the woman’s freedom.

    As a tradcon myself, I don’t see this as inherently bad – merely the playing out of animal instinct and human nature – but it certainly doesn’t make life better for the women involved. When I support large families and population growth/natalism (as I do), it is because I think it is logical, natural and valuable. White knighting for the women’s movement has nothing to do with it.

    • It’s a form of white knighting for women not the womens movement. The intention of having large families in the past was not about having large numbers of children. Besides hands on the farm, it was about making sure a sufficient amount of children survived to adulthood. We don’t need to do that now.

      Large families are now a make work project for women. Most jobs women do are also make work (usually government or government related make work). Both sides of argument of whether women should stay at home or go to work involve women doing make work. Subsidizing make work for women is white knighting.

      • I whole-heartedly agree, PMAFT! Large families are a drain on the public purse when their parents, who probably reproduced like rats to create them, are on welfare(and they usually are) and they lead to overpopulation, which is a major cause of society’s problems. The father would also have to work more than 2 jobs to support a huge family if he lives with the mother or pay outrageous amounts of child $upport if he lives in another house, since the mother’s traditional role is to stay at home to maintain the children and the household, so it isn’t in the best interest of the men’s movement to promote turning back the clock on progress and impose an old-fashion agrarian lifestyle on others.

        • @Hydroxide

          But the whole point of the above is that large families do not necessarily involve an old-fashioned agrarian lifestyle. As PMAFT has pointed out, it’s possible to have large families and modern trappings, such as medicine, together (his argument being medicine makes large families unnecessary).

          Regarding those rats who are a drain on the public purse, I’m the product of a large family myself, but I can tell you my parents never took a penny from the government. I guess it all depends on whose reproducing – get rid of child support and government subsidies and I suspect you would find the ‘benefit mom’ scandels quickly disappear.

          It is is easily possible to have a large family on a single income. Keep women in the home where they belong, and income for men will be twice what it is today – as it used to be – the smaller active workforce will increase wages to compensate.

      • Large families are not essential any longer, but they are beneficial to society and to the parents that create them. There’s something intrinsically valuable about procreating. It breathes fresh ideas and worldviews into a stagnant system, it forces men to show responsibility for their actions, and women to show compassion and respect. Having a family is much more than simply replacing dead people. You are misunderstanding the position of every tradcon I know on this matter, including myself.

        Point taken about the difference between white knighting for a movement and for women themselves. I’m new to antifeminism, so excuse me if I mistake the jargon sometimes. As I said in a previous post, caring for a family is a bit of a mixed bag for women. It creates dependence, and it also (in the traditional model) frees them from more mundane work outside the home.

        • You forget one of the goals the elites had when they created feminism was population control and it’s working as planned. I never want children and even if I did, I would be wise to wait for artificial wombs.

        • So every childless man is irresponsible?

        • The opposite, he knows it’s a bad time to have children at this time. The children belong to the women and government.

        • A childless man is not necessarily irresponsible. But he would probably be more responsible if he had a family, and knew if he screws up those he cares about most will suffer. It tends to rein in some of the risk-taking behaviour we males are known for.

        • Savethemales is right. I know it’s a bad time to have children now, in Western countries at least. I want to change that, and I want to let my fellow antifeminists know why I think it is important.

        • Hi. Thanks for your comment. It’s been a few years since you wrote your comment, but I hope my message gets through to you and others who may read it. I was an anti-feminist for years after I was a feminist. But now I have gone to mgtow. I agree with Sandman on YouTube that anti-feminism is still traditionalism so it’s a trap. Forget anti-feminism. Women hate men, but need men in the long run to keep society running. They can uphold society for some years, in spite (since that’s the only thing that motivates them (child rearing and child protection is an instinct and hormones, not motivation)) but then things come crumbling down. Anti-feminism promotes the silly idea that equality is important because women can do what we can. They forget to tell you that 1% of them can do what men can.

  2. 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.

  3. PM/AFT“(Sending women to work is obviously not an answer as the last few decades have shown us.)”

    Siege“While keeping women in the home may be considered by some MRA’s to be a form of benefit or wealth transferral, it does clearly create dependence on the man and restrict the woman’s freedom.”

    This is a very interesting issue for me. Given that women are less apt to take employment in fields that not safe, comfortable and suppressive of masculinity, they massively occupy the sectors of the economy that everyone with their head screwed on straight knows need to shrink by magnitudes.

    As was well explained by PM/AFT, the role of birthing and motherhood has somewhat diminished, though I think they’re currently dangerously below where they should be. This is especially so when considering that the opportunity cost is magnified by the net burden on society of providing them with false professional jobs.

    What, then, are women to do? There’s a large strain of MRAs that thinks women need to be treated equal and should work to take care of themselves. Fine for them to say that, but I think they say this more out of spite for women than as a real solution.

    That just means men must pay higher taxes so government can force resources into women’s jobs so that they make enough money to be “independent.” Look at what the NOW did with regards to the stimulus.

    These MRAs oppose the traditional system of marriage, calling it “slavery” to women and children. I don’t know about the specific men who have said this, but for a great many men in the general population, I think if marriage was redesigned to be of more tangible benefit, they’d be happy with the arrangement.

    The point I’m making is that, no matter how you attempt to set up the system, men are going to be working for women and children. Whether an MRA likes this eventuality or not, he must still consider: What is the least detestable way to do this?

    If we maintain a free market, there may not be enough comfortable, high paying jobs that all women are willing to take, and the left overs would have to interact with and provide benefit to individual men. With this system, a man can opt out of providing for a woman and, at the same time, pay far less in taxes to prop up a fake “independent women’s” economy. He also endures less general misandry in the culture.

    If we expect all women to provide for themselves, then only government can make this happen. Government will have to fight female unemployment. Then we have to suffer affirmative action, sexual harassment laws, an unproductive economy and arrogant, insufferable women who think men are useless trash.

    With the traditional set up, as men drove humanity forward, women were brought along for the ride. Feminism promised that women had great capability to help participate in progress, but I agree with PM/AFT that this is largely untrue.

    Men have made great progress despite feminism, but now women still deriving those benefits as men pull them forward, while getting in the way and being wholly unappreciative.

    • Women(who are really overgrown children) and children have always been dependent on men. Men were independent, but expected to marry and support their women and children. All feminism has done is trick those women that being housewives is “oppressive” but working harder for the substitute govt hubby or soulless company is somehow “liberating”. Many MRAs want to return to the patriarchy, but this isn’t going to work since millions of men want nothing to do with women(or pump and dump at most). The solution will be robots that will take on more and more of men’s jobs and supporting men(and women). This will soon render money irrelevant, begin the transhumanism movement and culminate in the technological singularity of 2050. Posthumanists which are sentient nonbiological lifeforms will set off to explore the universe(s).

    • Well put, Eincrou. Women have little interest in, and even less aptitude in, real work. In a truly free market, plus trade barriers, the economy would almost certainly restructrure away from ‘white collar’ jobs and towards the traditional mainstays of the economy (manufacturing etc). Only through the worst kind of economic intervention do women achieve any semblance of parity with men.

  4. PMAFT wrote:
    I have taken flak for talking about alternatives for men to have children such as artificial wombs in the future and surrogate mothers in places like the Rotunda clinic in India.

    The feminists have brought this on themselves by spawning the parasitic divorce industry. The only sure means a man now has to prevent his children from being taken away from him is surrogate motherhood.

    Knowing this the socon and tradcon call for large families becomes a form of white knighting for women.

    When even one child is ruinously expensive, the socon and tradcon call for large families rings kind of hollow. I almost never see conservatives address the negative impact of women in the workplace (they suppress wages, drive up overhead, and are relatively unproductive compared to men) and in the housing market (two-income families inflate real estate prices artificially). They also increase economic inequality due to the hypergamous mating preferences of women, who rarely ‘marry down’.

  5. PMAFT wrote:
    Evobio is problematic as is

    While I respect evobio researchers and theorists, I have the impression that much of what they’re doing is rediscovering un-PC truths about human nature that were already known in earlier cultures. Shakespeare’s plays are chockful of them – he may not have had our scientific method and giant datasets but he was a keen observer of people.

    Evolution did not bring us civilization and technology.

    Not sure about that one. There is evidence that modern humans underwent a fundamental shift in mentality about 70,000 years ago. Jared Diamond has nicknamed it “The Great Leap Forward”. Some anthropologists attribute it to genetic mutation, although that isn’t universally accepted. Whatever happened, it’s what made advanced civilization and technology possible.

    eventually biology will be something to be engineered so ideas like “eggs expensive, sperm cheap” no longer hold as they once did (if they ever were true). .

    That is true. I would say “eggs expensive, sperm cheap” has never held with people since men (usually) have been forced to invest so much in offspring for them to survive.

  6. I have been posing the question, what about being very selective in choosing a female, then having children in a committed relationship but not getting married, not getting the psychotic law involved. Without the divorce bullshit, you are left only with the children issues. 1) maybe this would disincentivize the female to initiate separation (no claim to your property) and 2) if she did separate, do you think that without the context of marriage and divorce you could have better chances of getting fair child custody, 50%?

  7. By ‘child support’ I was referring to government grants provided to carers of children. What do you think I am trying to optimise? I want to see a world as it has been for virtually all human history. I want to see women return to the kind of work they excel at, and the country return to the kind of work most beneficial for it (manufacturing and research). Child support wasn’t designed to ‘get around’ either of those objectives.

  8. Siege wrote:
    I want to see a world as it has been for virtually all human history.

    I don’t. It would mean the return of the pre-1800s ‘Malthusian economy’
    that economist Gregory Clark has written about in his book “A Farewell to Alms”. Before the Industrial Revolution, humanity was locked in a Red
    Queen’s Race where living standards and personal wealth didn’t improve significantly despite technological advances. We live in a fundamentally different era and there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle.

    I want to see women return to the kind of work they excel at, and the country return to the kind of work most beneficial for it (manufacturing and research).

    For that to happen, we’d need to have a frontier. Where would we go? Every square foot of land is claimed by one country or the other with the partial exception of Antarctica. That leaves the oceans and outer space. Great idea, but technologically we aren’t quite there yet.

    • There’s no returning to the patriarchy, but moving onwards we will enter a nerdarchy. I bet by 2020 when most men are enjoying their VR girls, they will no longer wish they had a traditional human woman. The genders will permanently separate and this process has already begun with millions of MGTOW.

  9. I’m no Malthusian, but before the industrial revolution you may well be right. It is quite believable that technological advances did not improve life quality for the masses before that point. I never said I wanted to return to our agrarian past, I would like to see a return to the patriarchy. That existed before and after the industrial revolution, and I see no reason why we cannot reap the benefits of the one while not abandoning the other.

    You say we need a frontier. It’s not essential – there have been many social revolutions throughout history, and we do still live in a democracy – but one would be useful. And for that, consider emigrating. There is a world outside America and Europe. Although many countries have been corrupted by the disease of feminism, still others are relatively untouched. I’m in PRC China now, and although this is probably one if the most feminist-friendly countries in Asia, the difference in the quality of the women is astounding.

    Go to places like Laos and Cambodia and you’re on the real Antifeminist frontier, in countries that are near the bottom of those ‘gender equality’ tables the feminazis like to throw out.

    There are other places outside Asia, all is not lost. I’m going to make a last stand against the barbarians in Laos. Who’s with me?

    • “and we do still live in a democracy”.

      This wasn’t true in 2011 when you made this comment and it isn’t true now.

  10. “…if you have sons you will be introducing misandry to them in your home.”

    *****

    It is perhaps more likely that the infant sons will introduce a compassion for men.
    Parents are very protective and sympathetic to the plight of their offspring.

    The feminist who’s male children outnumber her female children is not long for the world of feminism. Feminism is no longer in her self interest because her self interest is now closely correlated to the interests’ of her children who are male.

    I saw this first hand with my own mother who was a feminist up until the point at which her sons (I being the oldest) outnumbered her daughters. She dropped the feminism in a hurry.

    Of course she still liked agitating, so she became an environmentalist.

  11. SaveTheMales wrote:

    concerning UFOs
    Youtube and blogs are full of them, sure some are fakes, but certainly not all.

    How do you know that? Without definitive evidence to support it I find your statement to be no more than a religious conviction.

    I talked with a certain commenter on robogirls and he doesn’t seem to be as optimistic as I am.

    That’s because he’s careful to make predictions based on well-established, well-understood trends. That’s why he believes that immersive VR porn will be readily available by the next decade, but not human-level AI. The first is just a straightforward projection of technology that mostly exists already while the second is still largely an unsolved puzzle.

    Ray points out the skeptics think linearly while technology is growing at a double exponential rate and I’ve seen the graph.

    Wrong – most technology is not growing at an exponential rate or if it is, the rate is far more modest than with information technology. Computer processing power will continue to grow for a while. Other technologies such as energy production, storage, and transportation have lagged far behind. Note that we don’t yet have the flying cars predicted in the 1960s. We don’t have space colonies yet either.

  12. Siege wrote:
    It is quite believable that technological advances did not improve life quality for the masses before that point.

    It didn’t. Up until about 1800, technological progress simply enabled higher populations without raising average living standards.

    You say we need a frontier. It’s not essential – there have been many social revolutions throughout history, and we do still live in a democracy – but one would be useful.

    If we’re going to have large families like you want (6+ individuals) a frontier would soon become essential. There’s only so much room on planet Earth even allowing for technological advances to allow us to settle hostile land areas (such as Northern Canada, Siberia, and the Antarctic) and the oceans.

    There is a world outside America and Europe.

    Since I’ve been to Asia, I know that. But I thought we were discussing setting up a social order that enabled large families. This is quite different from having individual men emigrate to nonfeminist countries to satisfy their desire for large families.

    • Regarding early technologies not increasing living standards, what about antiquity – classical Greece and Rome. Did public sanitation not increase living standards for the masses? Roads (that were more than mud tracks)? The development of more scientific medicine and milling techniques? Underfloor heating for the colder months? There were many such developments in the ancient world. Living standards improved as a result, albeit unevenly across social class / urban and rural populations.

      I also thought we were talking about establishing patriarchal and natalist social orders. Which is why I mentioned social revolutions in developed countries as one way we could bring them about. Large scale emigration of disaffected males to countries that already lack feminism, is another way to effect social change. These emigrants can become active politically and shift public sentiment in their adopted home, more easily than they could in countries that have already been corrupted.

      You seem to be more concerned with the issue of population than social revolution. Which is really quite naive of you, as these Malthusian nightmare scenarios just don’t bare up to careful thought or historical fact.

      I think ‘Accelerating Future’ said it best. See:

      http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/09/overpopulation-no-problem/

      The author makes some assumptions that I don’t agree with – either because they’re too conservative or too radical – but the bottom line is the world has a carrying capacity of at least 100 billion people. That’s enough room to grow until cheap access to space becomes available, and then the sky’s the limit.

  13. Seige wrote :
    Regarding early technologies not increasing living standards, what about antiquity – classical Greece and Rome. Did public sanitation not increase living standards for the masses?

    Generally, no, because disease prevention in Malthusian economies led to higher populations which would simply lower living average standards to their previous level. Some societies did enjoy higher standards of living than others. But it was primarily determined by social, climatic, and other factors rather than technology.

    For example, the average standard of living in Hawaii before the coming of the white man was higher than in medieval Europe. But that was due to the mild climate (which made economic security easily achievable) plus the high likelihood of death by homicide and infanticide which kept the population in check.

    Roads (that were more than mud tracks)? The development of more scientific medicine and milling techniques? Underfloor heating for the colder months? There were many such developments in the ancient world. Living standards improved as a result, albeit unevenly across social class / urban and rural populations.

    That was not what economist Gregory Clark found, who studied the economies of earlier societies and published his findings in his book “A Farewell To Alms”. His conclusions were that technological developments only began to have a positive impact on living standards after about 1800, which coincided closely with the Industrial Revolution. Before that time, human societies did not (on average) progress beyond the living standards of hunter-gatherers. He also found paradoxically that many factors that are only negative today (such as war and pestilence) had a positive effect on living standards. For example, the Black Death improved the wealth of the survivors
    tremendously by making labor scarce and forcing employers to pay higher wages to workers. It also ensured that there was almost twice as much farmland per capita.

    I suggest you read the book, which is available for download at Amazon. I was very surprised by much of what he said, but it was carefully reasoned and made a lot of sense.

  14. Seige wrote:
    The author makes some assumptions that I don’t agree with – either because they’re too conservative or too radical – but the bottom line is the world has a carrying capacity of at least 100 billion people. That’s enough room to grow until cheap access to space becomes available, and then the sky’s the limit.

    At 2-3% population growth per year (large families and low death rate would easily enable this) 100 billion people would be within sight in as little as a century – just do the math. I also seriously doubt population levels that high would be desirable due to the waste heat generated by the demands of a high standard of living for all of them. So if we’re going to combine high levels of growth with technological advances and a high standard of living, we will have no choice but to expand into space, and do it soon.

  15. What is wrong with that women bear children, if the female body is naturally designed for growing an embryo within the womb, bare children and breast feeding?

    Only thing is these wicked feminists do not accept the natural sexuality.

  16. You idiots are the stupidest, sickest, most anti-human people I have ever seen.

    “Large scale emigration of disaffected males to countries that already lack feminism, is another way to effect social change. ”

    Social change isn’t what you want, pig. You want the same ol same ol. Hence the moving to places that haven’t made the social changes you hate.

    What you want is to be unquestionably at the top of the heap, even though you know you haven’t earned it and don’t deserve it. You’re all lazy and stupid, in other words. You want women who will babysit you. You want portable mommies. And you call yourself men?

    Really?

    You people are the most pathetic, most needy bunch of maladjusted creepo-f&#$os I’ve ever seen.

    Makes me glad I’m a gun owner :)

    • So if ‘evelle’ hates a certain type of men, why is she unhappy they are leaving? Because she NEEDS these men, that’s why.

      What a parasite evelle is. Her words are dripped with her embarrassment at being unable to attract a man.

    • What are you going to do with your gun, Evelle? Demand a man marry you at gunpoint?

      You clearly get no attention from men whatsoever in your real life, and it shows in your seething jealousy and projection.

      Now step aside, we pickup-artists have attractive women to spend time with, and your ugly visage is blocking the view.

  17. @Evelle

    How did you end up on this site … is PMAFT circulating in red neck feminist circles now? …

  18. Artificial Wombs are beneficial to women and men. For women it removes the burden and risks of marriage (mental, physical). Artificial Wombs will be superior to natural pregnancy, because nutrients are carefully administered and the baby is monitored 24/7, genetic defects can be identified and fixed before the child is born.

    Then women are free to do other things and be productive. So it’s safer and less expensive than natural pregnancy. More info on: artificialwomb.net

    Artificial wombs (incubators) are also useful for Singularity as it enables the merger of humans with cybernetics in the future.

  19. […]  However, she is wrong because that process has already started without artificial wombs.  Growing numbers of men are coming to the realization that women’s involvement in raising child…  Paternity testing has shown that many women can’t be trusted to have your children instead […]

  20. […] What started all of this anti-vaccination nonsense was a discredited study linking vaccination to increased autism rates.  Not only was this study discredited to the point where the journal that published it chose to disavow it, the study was funded by a law firm on a fishing expedition to sue vaccine manufacturers.  Despite these facts, women immediately latched on this.  Why did this happen?  To understand the reason, one must understand that certain degrees of autism, particularly autism level 1 (or Asperger’s Syndrome as it used to be called), is not a debilitating disease but indistinguishable from ultra-masculine thinking (the type of thinking that drives innovation).  In fact, lower levels of autism, especially those that used to be called Asperger’s Syndrome, are likely to be nothing more than the medicalization of regular masculinity.  In other words, women believed the anti-vaccination conspiracy theory because of their fear and hatred of masculinity.  Not only is women refusing to vaccinate their children dangerous for their children’s health, it is particularly dangerous for their sons since those women in addition to endangering their health will be raising them in a cesspool of feminist/anti-male ideology.  This is another example of how women’s role as child-bearer is rapidly becoming unnecessary and in many cases even harmful. […]

  21. Technically, all biological humans will be made obsolete and they will be stuck on earth. All humans who wish to leave earth to explore the universe will merge or upload their brains and consciousness into sentient machines. Men will become smarter, more logical selves while women will be totally transformed and think exactly like men. It’s been said that nearly all advanced alien civilizations are all men or genderless and they all think logically like men. The current mind of men is very useful and will be augmented with computer intelligence while women’s minds are obsolete and must be converted to men’s minds. Could this be the end result of feminism by making women hate being women and wanting to compete with men and BE men?

  22. A lot of non-thinkers (Thursday being a prominent example) like to say ‘sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive’, as if that explains everything.

    I suspect his problem is that he relies too much on evobio models that may have some explanatory value for many species of mammals, but don’t address human social systems and mating patterns. The ‘sperm/cheap, eggs expensive’ model is fine for classical tournament species like elephant seals. But it’s almost worthless in describing human mating where males provide essential provisioning and protection services.

    Now, women are the ones who are at risk of devaluation from technology, Those idiot ‘transhumanists’ have it exactly wrong when they insist men are the obsolete gender.

    It’s a mystery why all those pseudo-intellectuals claim women have the upper hand in the modern world. it’s as if they’ve forgotten where all that technology originated from – from those allegedly soon-to-be-obsolescent males.

  23. Evobio is problematic as is. Beyond that evobio tells us little about civilization and culture and nothing about technology. Evolution did not bring us civilization and technology.

    Biology has been an immutable force through history so most people think it still is. Biotech is the beginning of that changing and eventually biology will be something to be engineered so ideas like “eggs expensive, sperm cheap” no longer hold as they once did (if they ever were true).

  24. Savethemales wrote:
    All humans who wish to leave earth to explore the universe will merge or upload their brains and consciousness into sentient machines. Men will become smarter, more logical selves while women will be totally transformed and think exactly like men.

    I hate to rain on your parade but how exactly can women transform themselves so they’re like men? We don’t even normally convert software applications from one thing to another, apart from fairly minor upgrades. And they’re far less complex than the mind of either a man or a woman.

    It’s been said that nearly all advanced alien civilizations are all men or genderless and they all think logically like men.

    Who has said this? Enrico Fermi and others have suggested humans are the only sentient beings in the galaxy. I think they may be right.

    The current mind of men is very useful and will be augmented with computer intelligence while women’s minds are obsolete and must be converted to men’s minds.

    Both PMAFT and I have already covered the unlikelihood of just casually converting someone’s mind to something else. The summary of our argument was that moving a mind suddenly to a vastly different substrate would render it insane.

    Could this be the end result of feminism by making women hate being women and wanting to compete with men and BE men?

    No, because feminism will just fade into irrelevance and not motivate anyone significantly.

  25. “I hate to rain on your parade but how exactly can women transform themselves so they’re like men?”

    Feminism has done part of that work already. Now we need to figure out the rest and also come up with a cure for their mental illness in the process.

    “Who has said this? Enrico Fermi and others have suggested humans are the only sentient beings in the galaxy. I think they may be right.”

    All those who believe that UFOs are real. Our galaxy(one of billions) has 200 billion stars and at least that many planets, surely thousands have intelligent life.

    “The summary of our argument was that moving a mind suddenly to a vastly different substrate would render it insane.”

    Then gradually augment the mind over several years, allowing a few extra years for a female mind.

    “No, because feminism will just fade into irrelevance and not motivate anyone significantly.”

    Those women are still mentally ill, they just won’t have big daddy government coming to their rescue.

  26. Savethemales wrote:
    Feminism has done part of that work already. Now we need to figure out the rest and also come up with a cure for their mental illness in the process.

    That “mental illness” is written into human DNA. In reality it’s not so much mental illness as biologically driven behavior that’s become maladaptive in our modern technological world. Eradicating it is hardly going to be as simple as surgically removing an overgrowth.

    All those who believe that UFOs are real.

    The USA is a nation that probably has more digital camcorders than people. Yet there has not been one verified UFO sighting. The obvious conclusion is that we aren’t being visited by aliens from another world.

    Our galaxy(one of billions) has 200 billion stars and at least that many planets, surely thousands have intelligent life.

    The complete lack of verified visits is strong evidence
    against that hypothesis. I’m kind of glad about that – I cannot imagine a more dangerous enemy than a sentient lifeform like man.

    Then gradually augment the mind over several years, allowing a few extra years for a female mind.

    There’s no evidence that a chasm like that can be crossed without completely destroying the identity of the female individual being ‘augmented’. In that case it’s really no different from dying. So what’s the point?

    Hans Moravec and other futurists who favor uploading rely entirely too much on handwaving and unproven thought experiments to be convincing. The end result is a sort of magical wishful thinking that appears almost like the rationalizations that feminists engage in.

    If you want to get an accurate picture of the future, I suggest you stick to speculating on scientific, engineering, and social trends that are better understood. That’s what both a certain commenter and PMAFT do – they aren’t afraid to go out on a limb and make predictions, but they keep their feet firmly grounded in reality. Nanotech bloggers such as Eric Drexler, Chris Phoenix, and Ralph Merkle are also good examples of this, although they don’t directly comment on men’s issues.

  27. “That “mental illness” is written into human DNA. In reality it’s not so much mental illness as biologically driven behavior that’s become maladaptive in our modern technological world.”

    Feminism has made mental illness far worse among women. Technology isn’t natural, but men are able to make better use of it than women and it’s no surprise men build and invent.

    “Yet there has not been one verified UFO sighting.”

    Youtube and blogs are full of them, sure some are fakes, but certainly not all. Also there’s thousands of stories of close encounters and most of the stories are consistent with one another. The only piece of the puzzle missing is official government disclosure. You can do a Google search for such topics as I have.

    “I cannot imagine a more dangerous enemy than a sentient lifeform like man.”

    Man is still not yet sentient, but will be at some point after the technological singularity of 2050. When you have invented almost everything, there’s no need for greed and evil.

    “In that case it’s really no different from dying.”

    Except when you die, you lose all your accumulated memory. Being able to upload a lifetime’s memory will efficiently achieve software immortality. Your body is but a vehicle for intelligence.

    “The end result is a sort of magical wishful thinking”

    Have you read up on Ray Kurzweil? He rejects anything “magical or spiritual” of the human brain. It’s a biological computer with physical infrastructure.

    “If you want to get an accurate picture of the future, I suggest you stick to speculating on scientific, engineering, and social trends that are better understood.”

    Only with much time and research will this all become understood. Robogirls for example will be the culminate result of pieces of different technologies. Nanotechnology is the logical end of continued shrinking of computers. Nanobots can repair any and everything in our body, augment our intelligence and even give us virtual reality indistinguishable from reality.

    “That’s what both a certain commenter and PMAFT do – they aren’t afraid to go out on a limb and make predictions, but they keep their feet firmly grounded in reality.”

    I talked with a certain commenter on robogirls and he doesn’t seem to be as optimistic as I am. He also believes Ray Kurzweil is too optimistic on most of his predictions. Even if so, then his predictions will come true eventually several years later. It’s hard to predict the exact year such and such will occur, but we have a ballpark while the skeptics insist it “will never happen” or “that’s a thousand years away” Ray points out the skeptics think linearly while technology is growing at a double exponential rate and I’ve seen the graph.

  28. VR Sex it will be, rather than robots.

    Yes. Sex robots will eventually arrive, but at a much later date. And by then, the misandry bubble would have popped a long time ago.

    And VR Sex is not a silver bullet. It will merely make 8s be treated like 5s,

    Short of direct neural stimulation, I’m guessing that VR sex will always feel slightly “clunkier” than the real experience, other things being equal. It probably won’t matter that much though. There will be a huge amount of resources thrown into making it good enough to be a reasonable fascimile of sex with a super-hot woman. As you said, 8s will become like 5s and more importantly men who would have had very limited prospects for sex (often through no fault of their own such as the Chinese) would then have the opportunity for a fulfilling sex life.

    Of course, computing is percolating into fields where it was not before.

    True, that’s something I neglected to mention in my earlier post. Many of the real advances in this century will be due to ubiquitous computing and the marriage of information devices to physical ones. 3D printers and smart materials are just the beginning of this trend.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: