>Ten years, ladies. Then the sexy lady robots will make you obsolete.


Ladies: Here is your nemesis.

Too much bad news on this blog of late. So today I bring you some truly good news for modern man. Not so much for the ladies, though. Apparently you gals are on the verge of becoming obsolete.

Or so says the fellow calling himself PatRiarchy — clever! — one of the unwitting contestants in Feministe’s Next Top Troll contest. Yep, flesh-and-blood ladies, watch out, because sexy lady robots are on the way:

Soon we men will no longer have any need of you at all and females will die out. By 2020 there will be the first full functioning android released onto the market. To be politically correct it will be a female. But economically it will be female becasue men would be prepared to pay a once off cost for never having to compromise and she would never take his kids. She can look like any female he wants and to his exact specifications. She will have great physical strength. Every piece of information ever recorded in human history at her fingertips. Including the Karma Sutra.

Yep, the Karma Sutra. It’s a lot like the Kama Sutra, except once you master the Reverse-double-cowgirl-butterfly position you transcend the realm of suffering and escape the cycle of rebirth.

Back to the sexy robot ladies:

She will be better than any natural Western female on Earth. She will be supportive of everything he does. And the cost to keep her is significantly less than any Western female. So as time goes on the investment becomes amortised.

Amortized, bitches! Fucking A. Mort. Ized!

Ok, some of you human ladies must be thinking, will your ability to pop out babies keep you from being consigned to the scrapheap of history? That would be a big no.

Soon we will be able to create and grow perfect male humans in vitro without ever having to worry about what harmful things a mother may ingest.

So there.

The weak perish and you have allowed yourselves to become weak by claiming to be victims and thus claiming privileges whilst never having to be reponsible for your actions. … When there’s no more mooching off men your fortunes will rapidly change and you will disappear. We’ve carried you for 3.5 MILLION years. Image what we can achieve with all the resouces that are saved from not having to support females. It’s a BRAVE new world dawning girlies and unless you grow up fast and stop whining and get doing you will fail.

Here’s an actual photograph of what it was like 3.5 million years ago. As you can see, the Australopithecus dude is doing all the work while the gal, who’s not even all that pretty, is dancing around like an idiot.


If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

71 replies on “>Ten years, ladies. Then the sexy lady robots will make you obsolete.”

>Is there a main stream story about a world where women are gone and men reproduce themselves and have robot girlfriends?No? I didn't think so. My point was that while there indeed is a fringe story about an all male world there are stories about women doing the same thing. The Amazon legends are the same type of story. There is no comparable society for men only. A movie about areas of life historically with no women such as Master and Commander or 12 Angry Men have nothing to do with imagining a world where one gender is wiped out. That was a very lame comparison. The Red Tent is a book about women set in a female only space of the mentrual tents of the middle east in Biblical times. Certainly I would not say it had anything to do with this subject. There is nothing wrong with writing a story about one gender.

>Yohan, please show me the context in which Rose Dimanno said those things. The whole column. That reads like she's joking. A little bit of googling reveals that she's a newspaper columnist for the toronto star, and generally speaking there aren't a lot of radical feminist newspaper columnists. Also, that list you linked to completely misrepresents Judith Levine by quoting things she's written that are summarizing the views of others, not stating her own views. This is not the first time you've posted a list of "evil feminist" quotes that grossly misrepresent people. If you keep posting these same lists the only conclusion I can draw is that you are deliberately misrepresenting feminism to score a few cheap points.

>"A movie about areas of life historically with no women"Well, actually, many of those on the lists take place in contemporary society. So either we conclude from this that women are still being kept from certain arenas of life, or that the writers/directors are perhaps being sexist, or that for whatever reason they want to depict worlds that are all male. The fact is that despite the endless complaints about "misandry"in popular culture, movies are FAR more likely to feature men as the main characters and women as afterthoughts or "love interests" or essentially as sexy scenery than to feature women as the main characters/prime movers in the plot. Movies that effectively take place in all-male (or close to all-male) worlds are so commonplace that almost no one even bothers to raise questions about them. But when women write about all-female worlds it's suddenly, ZOMG they want to kill all men!

>"You mean like this whole blog deliberately misrepresents the men's rights movement? "Well, no, because I don't misrepresent the people I quote. If you can find examples of me taking quotes out of context in such a way that I suggest that someone is saying the opposite of what they are actually saying, please post them. When I quote someone with a particularly weird or extreme view I make clear that these views are not generally shared in the MRM. In some cases I feel justified in making generalizations — like saying that misogyny is common in the "manosphere." I feel comfortable in dong that because I can cite dozens if not hundreds of comments to that effect, comments that are often upvoted or agreed to by others, or at the very least not challenged. If someone isn't explicitly identified as an MRA, I don't label them as such. Many of the people I quote here are from MGTOW message boards and I identify them as such. I do not know if they consider themselves MRAs — though many of them no doubt do — so I identify them as part of MGTOW, not the MRM. You and other critics claim all the time that I'm misrepresenting the MRM. In doing that you are, yep, misrepresenting me.

>David: Yohan, …..This is not the first time you've posted a list of "evil feminist" quotes that grossly misrepresent people.This is not my list, I gave merely a link to another website. Not even an MRA-Website, not the DailyMail…—–About 'quotes' grossly misrepresenting people, you are really good with that, David, when it is against the MRAs.You are browsing MRA-forums with a fake-ID, copying some sentences out of context and are claiming that's the general MRA-way of life…

>You do not make it clear at all that you are not labeling the entire MRM. The real estate world is dominated by women, and the movie is 20 years old. Even 20 years ago there would likely have been a woman in the mix. There are many, many real estate businesses these days who have all female staff. Would you consider that sexist?Crimson Tide is about a submarine crew. The logistics of making a sub gender divided are impossible. If there was interest and ability to woman an entire sub I think the majority of folks would have no problem with an all female sub crew. But to attempt to have two separate quarters in a sub is stupid at best. These few movies do not really reflect any true disparity. There are many movies being made today with mainly female casts, where men are a sideline at best or bad guys. The difference in genres is that 'chickflicks' tend to be romances because that is what women are paying to watch. Men enjoy watching movies which solve a problem or in which the characters act like young boys, and women enjoy watching movies which explore interhuman relations and/or where characters explore their freedoms. These trends are enough that Hollywood offers these options in the majority of films. Women are not kept out of any areas of life except combat. It is not men's fault that women choose rarely to go into certain fields. Would you blame women for men being so rare in nursing or teaching?

>BQ: "You do not make it clear at all that you are not labeling the entire MRM."So it's my responsibility if you jump to conclusions? In any case, because some idiots do keep jumping to conclusions, I put a note about this in the fucking FAQ, for fuck's sake: "2) That every post I make about an individual Men's Rights Activist or antifeminist is intended as a critique of the Men's Rights Movement as a whole. Nope! Not all feminists agree on everything; not all MRAs agree on everything. When I critique an individual, you should take that as a critique of that individual. Though sometimes the things these individuals think are things that lots of MRAs think, which brings us to to our next item in the list."Do I need to put this at the top of every page in giant red blinking text or something?

>If the "American Women Suck" site put a disclaimer saying they are not criticizing women as a whole, yet the content stayed the same, would that convince you that they were not characterizing the whole group?It wouldn't convince me, just as your disclaimer does not keep me from noting that the content of your site is pretty solidly attempting to dismiss men's issues. If you were really just looking at misogyny, the term MRA would never be posted in the articles. It would not be relevant, as you would only be dealing with individuals, who may or may not be MRAs.

>Uh, is the name of this site "Men Suck" or "American Men Suck?" No. Do I make generalizations about all men? No. Do I criticize misogynist men (and women)? Yes. Do I dismiss real men's issues? No. Do I dismiss made-up or exaggerated claims about male victimhood based on poor logic and dubious statistics? Yes. This blog started off focusing on the MRM. The more I looked at the MRM, the more misogyny I found. When I expanded my focus to look at MGTOW — related to and overlapping with the MRA but not identical with it — I found even more. I became more interested in misogyny, and changed the focus of this blog to concentrate on that. Since I am more interested with misogyny that's used to support dubious politics rather than random misogyny on, say, video game message boards, I still focus most of my attention on misogyny in the MRM andMGTOW movements. There are MRAs who are not misogynist, and perhaps even a few MGTOW who aren't, though given that MGTOW is all about avoiding women, that's a little rarer. I draw the material for this blog from "mainstream' MRA/MGTOW sites — the sites that MRAs/MGTOWs flock to online. Only very very rrely is the misogynby I fnd there challenged by anyone on these sites, and in many cases there is a lot of support for these misogynist positions and a lot of attacks on the very, very few people who do challenge this misogyny.If you can point me to an MRA site or message board that is largely free of misogyny, I would love to take a look at it.

>Biscuit Queens home site is Stand Your Ground, this site has rules about global generalizations etc. It excuses boorish behavior as “ranting”.However she has her eyes in the sand. Most of the members there are also members of much more radical sites, which she does not ever look at. After reading this post I looked at SYG. BQ asked about radical mra sites and was happy to note that these sites really were not REAL mra sites. Head in the sand labels The Biscuit Queen well. She is very well meaning but has been feed a line of bull crap a mile thick and believes every word of it. BQ. Instead of asking the guys on your board about radical mra sites why don’t you google them and then make up your own mind? Spend a couple of hours reading the posts on American women suck, or the spearhead. Then defend.

>Davey-boy and Dave, now there's a tell-tale correlation if ever I saw one. "A few minutes after one 'Ernest Chatham' shows up (…) posting a comment" that I read and with which I am in full agreement. OK, I won't call you Dave anymore, but I sure as heck won't call you Sherlock (or Einstein either).

>If we could grow babies in artificial wombs, then that would be a huge deal for assisted reproduction technology. I just don't see anything like that happening anywhere in the near future. I also wonder what DNA codes children would have if they had fathers but not mothers, only incubators. Then I again I shouldn't put this much thought and effort into some crazy guy's ideas in the manosphere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.