The Social/Cultural Ramifications of one Sex losing a significant portion of their power/purpose?

Paragon Fury

The Loud Shadow
Jan 23, 2009
5,161
0
0
So a topic that has been rumbling about in my mind after a article appeared here in the Escapist, and was only reinforced by a couple of topics I've seen since on Reddit AND while browsing through some old anime and manga of mine;

What would happen if women were suddenly no longer needed for their social/ "human" aspects and were only useful for creating children?

It's a concept explored or implied but not explored by a lot of media, particularly in anime/manga like Ghost in the Shell, DearS, Chobits, Saber Marionette J or games like Deus Ex, Become Human etc. The trope/example normally has women being the ones replaced/lessened (or implied to be) but it extends to men as well, and leads to the question in the title;

What would be the Social/Cultural Ramifications of one sex losing a significant portion of their power/purpose? (Or even both sexes).

Though obviously the topic itself could probably hold the discussion as it is, I'll give the basic outline of a scenario to help guide it should it have a bit of trouble on it's own. This is a basic outline of a plot/world setting that I came up with based on a writing prompt I saw on Reddit (and part of what inspired the idea for the question in the first place);

Year 2025

A wealthy owner and head researcher of a bio-medical company - think Tony Stark, but without the assholish bit - is happily married in what only could described as an idyllic marriage to a beautiful and lovely woman he has known for over a decade. His company mostly deals in research and development contracts including things like medication, treatment for burns, skin diseases, muscle regrowth and strengthening etc., limited robotics and cybernetics research for prosthetic and augmentations, reversing/controlling brain damage and even a small division for AI research, partly for the money and partly because the Owner enjoys it. The company is fairly wealthy and well-off due to patents and products sold to and employed by many governments and businesses, though it has expressed interest into moving into the commercial market to make more profit.

One night the Owner's life is destroyed when on the way home from a party he and his wife are struck by a drunk driver. His wife is killed and he himself is crippled, with his left leg becoming almost useless and requiring some of his company's technology to even be mobile. He also suffers from notable disfigurement on on his face. To him though, the only loss that matters is that of his beloved wife and how he'll never get to see or live with her again.

He spends several years falling deeper into depression, even as he tries to become more social and meet and perhaps love someone else. He cannot find someone that he sees as even being close to his wife, and sees either deceit or greed in every woman he meets, if not outfit rejection because of his handicap; which he has declined to have fully fixed as a reminder of what he has lost.

He gets caught up in the reports and studies on the troubles people around the world, especially the young, are having socializing and finding "the one" so to say. How divorces become more common, relationships are becoming shallower, people have trouble meeting or caring about people in any real way etc. and growing rise of depression and loneliness, particularly among young men.

He resolves to solve this problem the only way he knows how;

He decides to build a solution to loneliness. Something his company can market and sell, and perhaps even help himself.

Using his company's resources and under the pretense of just continuing their previous work, he instead embarks upon his new goal.

6 years later, at the annual Consumer Electronics Show, his company is slated to have it's first truly commercial product be unveiled. The entire show goes by without anything being unveiled, until the very last display is to be made. On stage is only the event's hostess - a woman named Eva, who had been greeting and announcing each event and display all through the conference. It is then that the Owner walks up and announces that Eva is the demonstration of their company's new product; a walking, talking female android. The entire conference had been interacting with her the ENTIRE TIME, not a single soul had suspected that she was anything but human, even those who had shook her hand or touched her (such as the child she hugged during one of the earlier displays).

EVA (the brand name) androids were to start being available within the year. Personal assistants or companions, available any (legal) way you wanted. Able to do or mimic almost anything. A companion as beautiful as Christian Hendricks? Done. As intelligent as a noble laureate doctor? Available. As fit and active as a professional athlete? Difficult, but available.

Programmed to have any personality you desired, with an interest in any hobby or skill you might want (though extremely precise/complicated skills such as dancing are still in the works), with the looks you want. Pick one off the line, or pay a few thousand extra for one-custom built for you. Walk right up and hug her, kiss her or do something more intimate and you'll barely tell the difference between her and real flesh-and-blood, if you even can.

The reception of course is lukewarm at first. While the tech world is EXTREMELY interested that an AI just passed the Turing Test and the combination of fine technologies that must've gone into making such a creation, the rest of the world is "meh'd" at the idea. Surely this would just be the field of eccentrics and the wealthy, especially given the price.

At first it is. Few can afford the EVAs, and they aren't exactly seen as being "wholesome" or respectable. But two years later, the Owner announces a new generation of EVAs that are even more life-like and realistic...and more importantly that thanks to refinements in production and reduced cost of materials, the price comes down to the point where a good mid-high grade model costs no more than a decent car today would. You can go to the bank, get approved for a small-moderate loan and walk up to a store to pick out your new life companion, or even get a payment plan much like getting a car or phone today.

The ADAM (male version) of the line, exists, but has developed much more slowly and is far less robust than the EVA line being mainly relegated to the realm military and research work as it isn't "nearly as nice as the lady models". Some have even suggest that the Owner has deliberately hindered the development of the ADAM line for one reason or another (ranging from lack of interest to hatred of men, each idea more conspiratorial than the last).

It is in this state we find the world; what happens when half the world's population suddenly finds themselves being replaceable....by robots? That nearly anyone with a job can afford?
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,680
3,591
118
The idea that a sex (or hell, any other group of people) has an inherent purpose is a poor one to begin with.

We've seen what happens when a group loses it's power.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Honestly a more interesting question would be what if women weren't needed for children anymore? Say through cloning, or magic, or babies coming from storks, the human race could continue without sexual reproduction.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
So the idea is the classical "women as breeding stock" and the OP omits the highest profile contemporary work to address the issue? The Handmaid's Tale deal exactly with this idea and it is as dystopian as one expects when seen from the viewpoint of one of the disenfranchised.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Jul 15, 2013
4,953
6
13
I swear this exact topic has been posted before here. By the very same person! Am I imagining this? It had the same sort of replies and rebuttals for a few pages. Perhaps a little more long-winded.
This isn't your average de-ja-vu, nor glitch in the matrix, nay... I ... can't have invented this memory. Not another one. It has to be real this time.
 

Secondhand Revenant

Recycle, Reduce, Redead
Legacy
Oct 29, 2014
2,564
139
68
Baator
Country
The Nine Hells
Gender
Male
There are some words I want to say but I'll refrain and say these ones instead

People don't have purpose based on sex. The idea is utterly asinine and fails to show any comprehension of what it is to have a purpose. A purpose requires intent, there is no natural purpose. Purpose is assigned. People do not have an inherent purpose.

You seem to be determining the 'power' of a sex based on what horny heterosexual members of the opposite sex thinks of them. I think you have an issue where you don't understand normal interaction with people of the opposite sex and that's clouded your entire judgement of their role in society. The entire question is dumb and that's me putting it nicely
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
How does that even work? Suddenly all women stop having personalities and interests?
 

Paragon Fury

The Loud Shadow
Jan 23, 2009
5,161
0
0
Gethsemani said:
So the idea is the classical "women as breeding stock" and the OP omits the highest profile contemporary work to address the issue? The Handmaid's Tale deal exactly with this idea and it is as dystopian as one expects when seen from the viewpoint of one of the disenfranchised.
I have not read that yet, so I'm not aware of it's contents.

Xsjadoblayde said:
I swear this exact topic has been posted before here. By the very same person! Am I imagining this? It had the same sort of replies and rebuttals for a few pages. Perhaps a little more long-winded.
This isn't your average de-ja-vu, nor glitch in the matrix, nay... I ... can't have invented this memory. Not another one. It has to be real this time.
If I have, it was more than a few months ago, probably more than 6.

The Decapitated Centaur said:
There are some words I want to say but I'll refrain and say these ones instead

People don't have purpose based on sex. The idea is utterly asinine and fails to show any comprehension of what it is to have a purpose. A purpose requires intent, there is no natural purpose. Purpose is assigned. People do not have an inherent purpose.

You seem to be determining the 'power' of a sex based on what horny heterosexual members of the opposite sex thinks of them. I think you have an issue where you don't understand normal interaction with people of the opposite sex and that's clouded your entire judgement of their role in society. The entire question is dumb and that's me putting it nicely
While I might not be the best person to explain this - someone with more time in sociology/psychology could probably do a better job - I'm going to have to give it a shot here.

All relationships are based on power and give/take, and all members of a society have a purpose, or are supposed to. Loosely defined, your "power" or perhaps more accurately your value is what you can give to others in return for them giving you something, or being around you. Though it is rather clinical to think about, all of your friendships are created and maintained because the other person has something you value/appreciate/want enough to keep them around and interact with them. You'll note that one of the most common reasons friendships fail or fall apart is simply because one side has nothing to offer, or the cost of that friendship outweighs the value it creates/has.

A woman's ability to have children creates automatic value, period. End of story. This isn't even debatable; it's scientific fact. However, alongside this they can have all the same kinds of value men can have - wit, intelligence, friendliness, cooking, crafting, charisma etc.

The issue arises that rules, norms, mores etc. of societies arise due to that automatic value; women create more people, and they are limited to how many they can create and by whom. Rules about how you can interact with them, how friendships between men and women are viewed, how they are to be treated etc. In almost all societies on Earth, both past and present, the social cost...or maybe more accurately social "stress"?...of maintaining a male-female relationship is significantly higher than the stress of maintaining a male-male or female-female relationship; hell, even users on this very site will admit to this point. It's part of the reason why social circles in the vast majority of cases tend to consist almost exclusively of same-sex groups, with perhaps a few exceptions.

The value of what someone else can bring to a relationship is paramount in why one will be pursued at all; it's risky and stressful for both men and women to maintain them with the opposite sex, so there most be a strong reason to do so.

So the question is; what happens when one side (or the other, or BOTH) no longer has a reason to endure this added stress, or to engage at all?

If men no longer have to go through the added social stress to get the things that generally make maintaining a relationship with a woman worthwhile, what happens to male-female social dynamic? Reverse the situation and it's just as intriguing a question; if women have a readily available option that lets them get everything they typically want out of a man, but allows them to skip the danger and frustration typically associated with maintaining a male relationship, what happens to men?

Saelune said:
How does that even work? Suddenly all women stop having personalities and interests?
No, but you can get an android/robot that already has the kind of interests and personality you're looking for without having to go "fishing" and hope as some would put it.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
I wanted to post that fake PSA from Futurama, but of fucking course its not on YouTube aside from the final line.

Life is not just sex, and fake people are terrible when they are biologically real.

People need to stop going after people who wont suit them for the long term, AND people need to stop playing all these BS games with eachother. No one likes them, so stop putting it on everyone else.

Dating and relationships are mostly hard because everyone makes them hard for no good reason.
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,740
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
No, but you can get an android/robot that already has the kind of interests and personality you're looking for without having to go "fishing" and hope as some would put it.
That sounds just...Boring.

As someone who absolutely doesn't want kids, and who is mildly asexual (I don't care about sex all that much. If I want to get off, I can do that on my own, no need to get another fleshy body involved that might not know what gets me going), the whole entire reason I look for a girlfriend is for the whole emotional companionship thing.

And having a robot that does exactly what I want? That feels like cheating. Machines don't have free will, so any relationship with one would be, basically, "not real". Thus negating the entire point of a relationship for me.

Now, if I was dating a girl and it turns out "surprise, I'm actually a free-willed AI, and I tailored myself to meet your exact preferences because I feel you are optimal for my needs", ok sure, I'd give that a shot. I'd be like "This isn't gonna work, is it?" but I'd give it a shot.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,351
8,853
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Am I the only one who finds the spoilered scenario a pretty blatant condemnation of men? "Oh, guys just want a pretty face and hot sex; they only put up with real women 'cause they have to."
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,582
376
88
Finland
The Rogue Wolf said:
Am I the only one who finds the spoilered scenario a pretty blatant condemnation of men? "Oh, guys just want a pretty face and hot sex; they only put up with real women 'cause they have to."
There are plenty of people who see other real people as almost nothing but trouble. Someone who dreams of a relationship yet when they stop and think about it they always find a million things that are just hassle. Like, so many things that don't seem to have anything to do with the relationship itself, and so the fantasy always wins. It requires a fundamentally different view on what is "real" and what "matters", but people that disillusioned and disenfranchised already exist (Japan is the typical example). Also I'm willing to bet a lot more are in danger of becoming like that.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Why would you replace humans with human looking androids for military service? ... why specifically male looking androids, to begin with? That sounds like a design flaw.

I'd have mine looking like large robotic cats kind of, with shoulder mounted heavy machine gun with 145 degree firing arcs on the horizontal plane, supported by leg mounted smoke dischargers and an internal mortar or grenade launcher. Guns of which that you can program just as well, supported by conventional drones, and hovering weapons platforms for sustained urban combat. Making them look human sounds positively stupid. Blow off a leg and it's crippled... reducing its stability through minimal surfacd area contact with thr ground, making them bipedal and elevating the centre of gravity places restrictions on the weapons it can use effectively, and reduces total flexibility of future weapon designs... and also just how easy they can be knocked to the ground from explosive forces.

Also reduces their carry weight, not to mention landspeed. Plus the human eye and brain is trained register human-esque shapes and silhouettes quickly... an alienesque looking robotic quadruped? Not so much. Being bipedal also reduces their land speed and capacity to vault over obstacles. While increasing the forward facing profile to the enemy.

My robots would even stack better on ships or aircraft.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,336
6,842
118
Country
United States
If these AI are advanced enough to pass the Turing test, then keeping them enslaved is a moral and ethical wrong.

Plus, I think this scenario sells men extremely short. "Welp, I guess women are entirely replaceable because sexbots are a thing". Yeesh, not making my gender look good with that assumption.
 

MeatMachine

Dr. Stan Gray
May 31, 2011
597
0
0
I think it is very difficult for us to navigate any element of transhumanism - particularly the relationship between the sexes, given that it is already a difficult and irritating subject in modern, 1st-world society.
 

Smithnikov_v1legacy

New member
May 7, 2016
1,020
1
0
Saelune said:
How does that even work? Suddenly all women stop having personalities and interests?
If you listen to MRA's, they never had them to begin with, outside of fucking whoever "Chad" is....
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
A woman's ability to have children creates automatic value, period. End of story. This isn't even debatable; it's scientific fact. However, alongside this they can have all the same kinds of value men can have - wit, intelligence, friendliness, cooking, crafting, charisma etc.
Nope. Not even close. A woman's ability to have children has value in contexts were procreation are valued, such as when looking to start a family. It is also a serious de-valuer of women in many other contexts, such as hiring and promotion practices were the company doesn't want future mothers taking maternity. Your statement is inherently rooted in a heterosexual man's desire to have children, because that's when a woman's ability to have children is valuable (and when she herself wants to have children, obviously). On a macro scale women as a group are sort of valuable because of this fact, but a) you can not transplant macro conditions to micro (sociological level to personal) or vice versa and b) you absolutely need men too for babies to occur. This means that for any fertile women who wants babies, fertile men have the same value because without them she's up shit creek. It also means that on a sociological level you absolutely need both men and women because both are intrinsic to the procreation of the human race.

But no, I hear you say, we don't need as many men as women. Which is sort of true. If not for the reason that when they have a choice, most women do not want the father of their children to be running off to his half dozen other mistresses that he also has children with. Raising children is hard fucking work and monogamous relationships have turned out to be a great way to share and reduce that burden. Hence we can ascertain that most women find a great value in men's fidelity and monogamous practices, because it absolutely helps to have the father around when his children are born.

All of this is a long way of saying that your "scientific fact" is not so. Saying "women can have children" is to cut the truth very narrowly, because the caveat is "after a man has inseminated her egg". The scientific fact is that women give birth to children, but whether that is valuable or not is a value judgement and value judgments are not scientific facts, they are opinions.

And as usual when the MRA talking points come up, the female perspective is not even considered, which makes the entire argument broken to begin with. In a dynamic involving two parties you need to consider both parties motivations and interests. Something the "women have value because babies" does not, because it is intrinsically rooted in the idea that women act as gatekeepers to men having children. The irony being that the opposite is true for women, they need men to have children.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,680
3,591
118
Paragon Fury said:
A woman's ability to have children creates automatic value, period. End of story. This isn't even debatable; it's scientific fact.
And I criticised Gorfias for sticking "arguably" into outlandish claims.

Value is subjective. Anything is valuable if you happen to value it.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
altnameJag said:
If these AI are advanced enough to pass the Turing test, then keeping them enslaved is a moral and ethical wrong.
Why? Computation isn't consciousness, there's no argument to be made that a machine that can mimick us well enough to pass for one should be "free" then any bot, especially since it wouldn't know what to do with its freedom in the first place. All responses would be based on its programming, so free or not it effectively makes no difference.

This isn't a pulp science fiction novel where they'll somehow develop a "soul" out of nothing.