Sexbots aren't the answer to feminism

In her memoir “First They Killed My Father,” Cambodian survivor Loung Ung described how Khmer Rouge soldiers would rape village women freely and force them into marriages to bring about a “pure” Cambodia. A woman’s duty under the tyranny of the Angkar, which is what the Communist Party of Kampuchea referred to itself as, was “to bear children for the Angkar. If they do not fulfill their duty, they are worthless and dispensable.” So, too, disabled people who couldn’t work in the fields were viewed as dispensable, and thus shot to death by the Angkar.

Sexbots don’t just demean women. Ultimately, they demean men in thinking that men are nothing more than base animals only interested in carnal desires. The idea that robots can replace humans relies on the idea that men aren’t interested in meaningful lives. (It is also a demeaning view of individual men who think of themselves as not being able to attract desirable women.)

Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos and pick-up artist blogger Chateau Heartiste thus argue that men don’t need any emotional or intellectual connection with their romantic partners. “[M]ost blokes are fine with a pizza and a wank,” Milo wrote, and “[M]en are just as happy beating a video game as they are solving the riddles of the universe.” Men are happy being worthless losers if they can get free sex: It’s the very same demeaning stereotype of men that the most radical feminists would apply.

Chateau Heartiste “can easily foresee a future where masses of betas and omegas become shut-ins, telecommuting for their sustenance.”