IZZY writes:

My previous post here on the men’s rights movement has made the rounds on other blogs, and has sparked a debate on the issue of sex robots. Reading the comments, it seems that the young men would be ever so content with being with a non-human object, rather than a real woman. As I am a young woman, I am disheartened by this, because it appears that my overall purpose is not needed.

I have noticed, increasingly, that the men’s rights movement has grown in evilness as the feminist movement has. There has also been talk that the “manosphere” is dead. Whether that is true or not, the overall attack on humanity on both ends of the spectrum has depressed me. It seems that both are ignorant of the evidence that a stable family is the traditional one.

Here is where I ask your guidance: how must I respond to this? I am a non-feminist woman. What am I to make of these men who prefer machines over women?

Laura writes:

Make nothing of them. They are not worth contemplating. Some things are too sick to worry about, and this is one of them.

Machines can never replace women. Any website where men brag of their desire for robots is not someplace where you should spend your time. These men invariably exaggerate the appeal of pornographic technology. All of it is empty and unfulfilling, a vast desert, a planet of sterility and loneliness.

You are a young girl and you should fill your mind with the beautiful and good.

—- Comments —-

Alissa writes:

This topic reminds me of something else. There is a large minority of men in Japan who are not marrying and not interested in sex. Some are almost like men’s rights activists (e.g. liberal in their worldview, disdain for housewives and househusbands), but for others they are enthralled with cute Anime girls and are basically strange nerdy men who like cute, almost submissive young women. I think for the first group they truly prefer machines, but for the second group they almost seem like they are trying to resurrect their ideals of what a Japanese woman should be like, albeit in odd ways. Both groups are plugged into the virtual world, and think that it’s more real than the real world.

Jesse Powell writes:

Izzy, your overall purpose is very much needed in the world regardless of what any MRA says. I understand that it is discouraging when many men of your generation succumb to such anti-women and nihilistic ideas as the MRAs demonstrate especially when you would think that the MRA would be sympathetic towards you due to your opposition to feminism. However, you must understand that there is healthy and positive opposition to feminism in North America; many are able to find positive ways of responding to the cultural crisis created by feminism.

 You mention “the overall attack on humanity on both ends of the spectrum has depressed me.” You are envisioning feminism as being one side of the spectrum and MRAs as being on the other side of the spectrum. This is not a correct way of seeing things. Feminism and MRAs are both on the same side of the spectrum; they are allied phenomenon. I would characterize MRAs as being a more extreme form or a more advanced form of feminism, not as something different or apparent from feminism. The two ends of the spectrum are MRAs on one side, patriarchy on the opposite side, and mainstream feminism in the middle.

On a personal level don’t feel like you need to “get along” with the MRAs; if you have an interest in political activism you can certainly assert yourself as an anti-feminist without bowing down to or conforming to MRA pressure. I would also stay away from any men who reject chivalry or who are overly concerned with their “rights” while ignoring or denigrating what you need and desire as a woman. It is easier to find support and positive models of living within Christianity; support for patriarchy on the secular side of things is only at the very earliest stages. Also there’s nothing wrong with simply ignoring the manosphere and taking a walk and breathing in some fresh air. There’s a lot more to this world than what the manosphere has to offer.

David C. writes:

I have to respond to Izzy because I don’t think she deserves to feel any hurt for what these men are saying about the supposed preferability of machines to women.

I tend to think your feeling hurt is exactly what these men want. They want to hurt you. They want you to feel like a disappointment, that you aren’t needed, that you have nothing to offer. They want to convince you that women have no value apart from sex and that the only reason men put up with women at all is to have sex with them.

Why? They hate women. They have no reason to talk about this other than the fact that they hate women. They want nice young women like you to come around and read what they have to say and feel hurt by it. One of the hardest things for them, no doubt, is that actually most young women couldn’t care less that these guys want sex machines.

These guys also really do hope that sex machines will come around, again because they hate women. On that day there will be a great reckoning in the relationship between the sexes. At long last women will know where they truly stand with men! No longer will men have anything to do with them, but will shun women in favor of… robots… with synthetic skin… and eyes that make little buzzing servo sounds when they move… and who are predictably, programmatically pleasing, undemanding, and impersonal. On that momentous day, foretold by the Prophets of Our Time, the MRAs, the bitter blogger will finally be vindicated and lifted from the darkness of his irrelevance. At long last, he will have shown the evil women who is king.

A rather grandiose hypothesis, don’t you think? Kind of like Hitler’s Third Reich, built on the humiliation of the Jews? But are you really convinced? Just how plausible is this scenario? It isn’t. These are the fantasies of small, sad, pitiful minds that can’t find their way out of whatever miserable hole they fell into during the course of their lives. Pray for them. More than anything they need prayer. It would take no one less than Christ Himself to introduce light into their hearts again. But do not be yourself affected by anything they have to say about you or your sex. Neither they nor their sex robots have any power whatsoever to sway the majority of men. That’s because the majority of men aren’t shaking their fists at the heavens in defiance of God’s establishment of the inexorable, supervening importance of womanhood. No, the great majority of men want the real deal, and there’s no way a mere sex robot would ever convince them. They want a woman, and no sex robot will ever give them what they’re looking for.

These are just facts. The grand hypothesis is nothing but a temptation and a fraud. These men cling to it, I think it’s safe to say, because they mistakenly believe they need to cling to it to hold their lives together. They’re delusional, and don’t let them get you down. You’re too much needed in other areas of life.

Laura writes:

David has said it all.

AR10308 writes:

I want to bring to you the perspective of a 29-year-old man who has been largely ignored by women for most of his life. The feeling you get from them is a fraction of the feelings of rejection that brought these men to where they are in their lives.

I’ve come to the point now where I have been without a woman for so long that I no longer believe a woman can add any value to my life. My sex drive is finally settling down so entertaining the idea of not marrying or having a family is something I’m comfortable with now. It also allows me to be much more objective in terms of choosing to spend time with women. It allows me to stand back and think about whether this woman can actually add value to my life, and ask if she is more trouble than she’s worth. Which is usually the case.

For you, the most important thing you can do is to learn how to add value to a man’s life. It used to be that girls were trained to do this, now feminism has so pedestalized women that they learn no appreciable skills to add to a man’s life besides sex, while simultaneously increasing what she expects from a man to stratospheric levels. Feminism has stripped women of their value and reduced them to sex objects by putting them in a place where most women no longer can add that value. When most women that men come across are nothing more than sexbots that are extremely difficult to live and deal with by comparison, why would a man has difficulty dealing with women (because of repeated emotional trauma) want anything more than a sexbot?

I had a girl once reach over the driver’s seat and open my door for me (unlocking the door is old school, due to automatic locks), after I helped her into my car. I was literally speechless. It may have been one the most unselfish things a woman I am not related to has ever done for me.

You say you aren’t a feminist and I’ll take your word at that. Men are learning to watch what you do, and ignore what you say. The question I would ask is what are you doing to prove it to the good guys around you?

The fact of the matter is that the women who brought about feminism were NOT hurt on the level that these men have been hurt on. These men have been rejected wholesale by women in their lives (either through divorce or outright rejection). They’ve been used, abused and torn to shreds by them to the point where it overrides their most basic biological drives. All they want is sexual relief and because life experience has taught them that what goes along with getting that sexual relief from a woman isn’t worth it.

I’m not one of these extreme MRAs, but I certainly relate to where their anger comes from. They are just verbalizing what most men are not. A lot of good, decent guys will just buy the sexbot without speaking about it and never look back.

The most powerful and final action a man has is to turn his back and walk away without a word. When men have been told by the fish that they don’t need bicycles by the culture at large for 40 years, don’t you expect some of the bicycles to go find something more mechanical (like a sexbot) to relate to since the fish has made it clear that it doesn’t need them? Why would you expect them to do anything else?

Laura writes:

I strongly agree with AR on this:

For you, the most important thing you can do is to learn how to add value to a man’s life. It used to be that girls were trained to do this, now feminism has so pedestalized women that they learn no appreciable skills to add to a man’s life besides sex, while simultaneously increasing what she expects from a man to stratospheric levels. Feminism has stripped women of their value and reduced them to sex objects by putting them in a place where most women no longer can add that value.

But AR has not carefully read Izzy’s statement. It’s one thing to encounter a man who says, “I have been driven to a terrible extreme.” It’s another to encounter one who says, “I like this terrible extreme.” Izzy wrote,

Reading the comments, it seems that the young men would be ever so content with being with a non-human object, rather than a real woman.

While Izzy should learn how to love and honor a man, she does not need to atone for sins she never committed. She should avoid like the plague any men who say women are worthless and who believe all women should be punished for feminism.

AR writes:

I read her comment just fine. I was explaining why MRAs have those feelings and where they originate, not justifying them. I was explaining the cause and effect. They don’t explain their feelings because male feelings get immediately dismissed and shamed by Feminists. “Oh, I can tell your angry, you should be less angry and more logical if you want people to take you seriously and I guess why we know you can’t get laid…,” says the feminist while basing her entire thesis on contrived anger and false emotion. Therefore the MRA won’t bother showing that side of him because it will only be used to further crush and ridicule him. So what you get is cold, stoic dismissal, which is the greatest weapon an MRA possesses against a feminist, because, as Izzy expresses in her comment, to be told you aren’t wanted regardless of circumstances is deeply hurtful to a woman.

“While Izzy should learn how to love and honor a man, she does not need to atone for sins she never committed. She should avoid like the plague any men who say women are worthless and who believe all women should be punished for feminism.”

Men are punished wholesale by feminism and its consequences. What makes you think that women who didn’t actively bring it about or don’t want any part of it aren’t going to suffer as well? I’m not saying either of these parties DESERVE to be punished, but the consequences exist regardless of what people deserve. I deserve to have a wife who will respect me, add value to my life and hasn’t been sexually promiscuous, but that doesn’t mean I will be able to find such a woman, or be able to attract her should I find her. I assess the current situation and determine that unless I can have marriage on my terms, I won’t have it at all.

What a person deserves and what they actually get are often two very different things. And you have to be able to set yourself up to get what you want, and that may involve some hard work on your own part.

The point of my advice to Izzy isn’t to pay for the sins of others, but to give her an advantage in a ruthless SMP that will allow her to attain what she wants in life.

Laura writes:

It seems to me that you were justifying this hatred of women. You were saying that it is reasonable and understandable. And I am saying that regardless of how much any man has been hurt by individual women and regardless of how pervasive feminist thinking is, a hatred of women in general is not understandable or justified. If I accepted your principles of understandable resentment then Mary Wollstonecraft, one of the early feminist thinkers, was perfectly justified in encouraging women to resent men because her father was cruel and because the man who was the father of her child left her and refused to marry her. I could say that the anger of early feminists like her was justified because men in the nineteenth century demeaned motherhood, made it pointless by their philosophical atheism and glorified equality. I could say that because men took the props from beneath procreation they left women with little purpose in life but to strive to imitate men and only anger and resentment. But I don’t believe the anger of feminists against men was in any way justified. It was wrong and evil.

And we are not talking about weapons against feminists but weapons used against women like Izzy who reject the principles of feminism and who is presumably trying to lead a good life.

You write:

Men are punished wholesale by feminism and it’s consequences. What makes you think that women who didn’t actively bring it about or don’t want any part of it aren’t going to suffer as well?

I wasn’t addressing the issue of whether women do suffer from feminism. I was addressing the issue of whether they should be actively punished by men regardless of their individual behavior. Why are you defending your decision not to marry? That is not what this conversation is about. I am not talking about whether a man should abandon the idea of marriage but whether men should be hostile to women in general, in the way Izzy described, and say they are worthless or that they prefer machines. It’s one thing for a man to decide he doesn’t want to marry, it’s another for him to harbor resentment against all women and seek revenge.

My advice to Izzy is not to try and engage with this anger on the Internet.

AR writes:

“My advice to Izzy is not to try and engage with this anger on the Internet.”

I would give her the same advice. Don’t worry about the men who have dropped out, in fact don’t listen to them or read them. Their goals have nothing in common with yours. Focus on finding the guys who are improving themselves and learn how to attract, respond and encourage them to pursue you further. Learn Girl Game.

Laura also wrote:

“It seems to me that you were justifying this hatred of women. You were saying that it is reasonable and understandable. And I am saying that regardless of how much any man has been hurt by individual women and regardless of how pervasive feminist thinking is, a hatred of women in general is not understandable or justified.”

 It sounded like I was justifying it because I described it rather vividly and that gave you the impression that I thought it was justified.

 Jesse Powell writes:

I can understand where many of the angry feelings of MRAs come from. Yes “modern women” as they are referred to have many faults and the “system” is rigged against men in many ways and the claim that feminists want “equality” often seems like just so much manipulation and lies. In addition to the personal psychology of MRAs being not so mysterious to me it is also easy for me to come up with macro explanations as to why the number of MRAs is growing. As relations between the genders decline the rise of angry men is not much of a surprise.

There is a problem with MRAs however; that is that they are still thinking “within the box,” they are still thinking within the realm of “equality” and “rights” and they are ever so pissed that feminism isn’t logically consistent and fair and concerned with the needs or “rights” of men as much as they are with the needs and “rights” of women. MRAs are still trapped within the liberal worldview even while they rage against one of liberalism’s main expressions; feminism. According to MRAs the world would be great if only we had “true equality” between the genders and if only society was “fair” to men and treated men and women “equally.” This is totally wrong. The world would be even worse if “true equality” between the genders was more closely approached. The problem of feminism is that it pushes men and women towards so called “equality” in areas of life where equality is a very bad thing to be strenuously avoided. “Fairness” and “equality” is precisely what needs to be avoided and fought against. “Fairness” and “equality” is itself the source of the problem between the sexes.

An MRA is still within the liberal paradigm; in order to come to promote a healthy model of what family life should be like it is necessary to be outside of the liberal paradigm and to be in rebellion against the liberal paradigm. The liberal paradigm can never be “fixed” or “made to work” because the fundamental liberal assumptions that “fairness” and “equality” and a focus on “rights” is to be desired in the first place is wrong.

Daniel S. writes:

It is odd indeed. The science fiction writer Philip K. Dick imagined in his book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep the creation of androids that were like humans in almost every way, except one: they lacked the ability to feel empathy. How right he was, though it is not androids that now walk the streets with a profound lack of empathy, but rather modern men and women. So were does this problem faced by modern man arise? In the specific case mentioned by Izzy, I think the existence of young men who would rather seek out simulated sexual or emotional relationships with robots reflects an understandable, though by no means justified or acceptable, resentful reaction to the aggressive feminism they experience on a constant basis. Like feminism before it, there is certainly a strand among the Men’s Rights Movement that is purely a product of ressentiment.

A more minor, though no less serious, issue at play here is all-encompassing technology, which alienates a man both from himself and from those around him, thus allowing for one to engage in pornography and other simulated, artificial sexual activities that require no intimacy or human interaction. Modern man has been to what the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel referred to as the “mere technical man,” and this is reflected as much in his emotionless sexual activities as other areas of his life.

Laura writes:

There was never a time or place where some men wouldn’t have had incentive to resort to sex machines if such things existed. Nevertheless, the man who publicly states that the experience of a machine is preferable to that of any woman is deformed and I disagree that feminism or the alienation of the modern world can ever fully explain this hardening of the heart.

Joe A. writes:

Alissa makes a common mistake understanding old English vocabulary. Husband comes from, roughly, “house bondsman.” A husband is a free-man who claims a home of his own, traditionally associated with taking a wife. Housewife is merely the feminine version as “wif” means “wife” or “woman.”

Likewise, a housewife is not married to a house as absurdly ignorant feminists like to mock it. A housewife is a free-woman who is married to a husband. Both are positions of responsibility and honor. Mister and mistress would be the appropriate courtesy titles, once thought of as entry level positions to the aristocracy.

And all the feminists can see is insult and degradation. Perhaps their blather about psychological projection is real, for them!

Daniel S. responds to Laura:

I would agree with you that such a man is indeed deformed not just in his mind, but in his soul. I do believe that ressentiment, the hegemony of the technological society, and ultimately a lack of true faith in a transcendent God leads to such corruption and deformity in the hearts of men.

Please follow and like us: