Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
Sat Jan 4, 2014, 07:50 AM Jan 2014

FYI: Gynoids, fembots, necrophilia and Blade Runner

It is important for men to stay fluent on the current discussions in Feminist circles and so when I read that Blade Runner is a sexist movie, I decided to try to find out why.

Here is what I found out and I make no judgment on the issue. I am merely reporting what is said about it.

Apparently there is a term "Gynoid" (meaning female android -sometimes the word "Fembot" is used). The Feminist issues relating to female robots (gynoid or fembot) is that it is itself sexist because if implies all sorts of ownership issues and that the female form can then be used for sexual gratification by the Patriarchy.

It is likened to necrophilia, which is of course a term for having sex with dead people.

So, please consider this an OP to share information so that next time someone mentions "synods", "fembots" or "necrophiliac Patriarchy", you will know what is being referred to.

My own opinion on the subject is that there is some truth to it. No doubt many men would like women who are there to fulfill their wishes and desires and what could do so better than a robot. "Necrophilia" is a bit of a stretch, I think. Perhaps that was tagged onto the concept in order to get a little more bang out of the shame factor.

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FYI: Gynoids, fembots, necrophilia and Blade Runner (Original Post) Bonobo Jan 2014 OP
Seems to take 'sex object' to a literal level Major Nikon Jan 2014 #1
Yeah, somehow vibrators inevitably get glossed over in those "discussions", heh Warren DeMontague Jan 2014 #8
Correct me if I'm wrong about Blade Runner (spoilers for a 30 year old film) ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jan 2014 #2
Sometimes high flown ideology is just perception management. nt rrneck Jan 2014 #3
Probably unavoidable, sadly. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #4
Here's what I found Major Nikon Jan 2014 #5
It sounds to me like it's continuing a proud tradition of over-analyzing shit into the ground Warren DeMontague Jan 2014 #6
Well.. you know... "bonerz!!!!" or something... opiate69 Jan 2014 #7
It's such a great movie. Warren DeMontague Jan 2014 #9
Aerocar, certified in 1956 Major Nikon Jan 2014 #10
Aw, come on. Warren DeMontague Jan 2014 #14
A car that flies in 1956? Major Nikon Jan 2014 #16
Full disclosure time.... opiate69 Jan 2014 #11
Ooooh, get the Criterion Collection version. Warren DeMontague Jan 2014 #12
Well... my birthday is coming up soon... opiate69 Jan 2014 #15
Five-Disc Ultimate Collector's Edition. MicaelS Jan 2014 #17
Yeah... that's just a bit out of my price range! opiate69 Jan 2014 #18
Get to Netflix now! Hayabusa Jan 2014 #13
It is common knowledge that the hidden subtext in "Lost In Space" was cannibalism, and tree-fucking Warren DeMontague Jan 2014 #19
Gynoid rights in the Victorian Era Bonobo Jan 2014 #20

Major Nikon

(36,818 posts)
1. Seems to take 'sex object' to a literal level
Sat Jan 4, 2014, 10:02 AM
Jan 2014

Seems like more of a modern version of a blow-up doll and I'm not sure how it would be any more sexist than a vibrator and arguably less so. At least something like this has all the other body parts to go with it.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
8. Yeah, somehow vibrators inevitably get glossed over in those "discussions", heh
Sat Jan 4, 2014, 05:35 PM
Jan 2014

Sort of a big buzzin' blind spot in the midst of all the "teh evilz menz jerst wernt to ferk rerberts!!!" hyperbole.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
2. Correct me if I'm wrong about Blade Runner (spoilers for a 30 year old film)
Sat Jan 4, 2014, 10:42 AM
Jan 2014

Isn't the big reveal of the film that the main (male) character is an android of some sort?

I'm always fascinated when a movie isn't just a movie. I guess some in certain circles are already spinning about "Her", which from what I gather, is about a man who falls in love with, essentially "Siri", an operating system who problematically has a female voice (and a very sexy one in my favorite, Scarlett Johansson, which I freely admit, WOULD force me to finally buy a smart phone). The movie is by "noted misogynist" (that's sarcasm, and full credit to the Jezebel commenter who said it) Spike Jonze.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
4. Probably unavoidable, sadly.
Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:33 PM
Jan 2014

I think there are 30% of the population, male and female, that have a profoundly difficult time relating to and connecting with the opposite sex. Their attitudes eventually become hardened until it becomes practically impossible.

I have no doubt that sex robots ARE threatening (competition?) to those who haven't yet given up on the idea of finding a life partner, but probably something of a relief for those who have.

Major Nikon

(36,818 posts)
5. Here's what I found
Sat Jan 4, 2014, 02:16 PM
Jan 2014

It all appears to stem from this which really isn't saying that gynoid/fembot/whatever depictions are sexist. It's using that example as a metaphor to try to get the reader to transcend traditional notions of humanity to better understand the model of feminism she is promoting. So it seems to go a bit deeper and by deeper I mean it would probably be a good idea to smoke something before you read it. Critics of her work basically refer to it as pseudo-intellectualism and it's not hard to understand why.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
6. It sounds to me like it's continuing a proud tradition of over-analyzing shit into the ground
Sat Jan 4, 2014, 05:26 PM
Jan 2014

well past the point of absurdity.

Seems to me the central philosophical point of the Movie (and possibly, by extension, the PKD story it is based on, although if I read it it was a long time ago and I've forgotten the details) is the old idea that there is no difference between an "artificial" intelligence and an organic one; that robots or cyborgs or replicants could or will have 'souls' and humanity just like everyone else.

Turns out the Sean Young character is supposed to be a Replicant, and it's heavily implied that Deckard, the Harrison Ford Character, may also be one. Roy Batty, played by Rutger Hauer, saves Deckard's life near the end of the film and then proceeds to give one of the best death speeches in cinema history. The implication of the film is, our creations are as much us as we are.

I don't see how anyone could turn that around into a parable of men wanting to make sex-bots.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
9. It's such a great movie.
Sat Jan 4, 2014, 05:56 PM
Jan 2014

I'd like to analyze why we don't have the flying cars, yet. GOOD GOD MAN FORGET THE SEXBOTS WHERE ARE THE FLYING CARS

Major Nikon

(36,818 posts)
16. A car that flies in 1956?
Sat Jan 4, 2014, 10:55 PM
Jan 2014

Funny thing about the Aerocar. The reason the Aerocar failed was not because of aviation safety requirements but rather because of automobile safety requirements. The additional weight required to meet auto safety requirements soon after its aviation certification made the Aerocar unworkable as an airplane.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
19. It is common knowledge that the hidden subtext in "Lost In Space" was cannibalism, and tree-fucking
Tue Jan 7, 2014, 06:29 PM
Jan 2014

It's disgusting that our supposedly good progressive men on DU defend tree fucking and the like yes yes tsk quack

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Men's Group»FYI: Gynoids, fembots, ne...