I shame the matriarchy

I mean - if no one can actually point to an individual whom they know well, whom they talk to and interact with, who is, you know, shaped "perfectly" and behaves "perfectly" at all times - maybe nobody like that really exists.

a strawbot?

maybe I'm just in love with the suffix "-bot". bot. bot. bot. botbotbotbotbot...
 

Well, I don't have my radical feminist dictionary at hand, but...

"what is a "sexbot"?
is it the same as a "fuckbot"?"

I believe these are the same things.

"the same as a "fembot"?"

This one I have only heard used by anti-feminists/MRAs as an insult to feminists.

"what does a "sexbot" look like? has anyone ever actually seen one?"

I'm guessing there are certain "feminist" who would use a picture of Ren in the definition of "sexbot".

"is a "sexbot" "sex-positive"?"

According to certain radicals, I suppose so.

"is someone who identifies as "sex-positive" by definition a "sexbot"?"

Depends on who you ask, I suppose.
 

Everytime I hear "fembot," I think of Austin Powers.

*shrugs*
 

the funny thing is, "fuckbot" actually feels -more- insulting than "fembot" to me, if anything.

wv: tcocok
 

I could well be wrong but I've always understood the 'bot' suffix as a likening to ro'bot'.

I'm not sure I could identify a sexbot or a fuckbot as I believe these are generic terms used to illustrate how (some) men identify certain kinds of women - i.e. not as people but simply in terms of penis fodder.

They're not terms I would use to descibe a woman as they're dehumanising but I would possibly use them as a kind of shorthand to illustrate misogynistic attitudes.
 

So you got my resume.
 

The -bot suffix definitely indicates to me puppeting, programming, indoctrination of some sort. So a sexbot may not necessarily be a hetero female under the mindfuckage of the patriarchy but anyone who is controlled by their sexuality. Is a fembot someone controlled by their femininity? Or dogmatically feminist?

You can twist these words quite a few ways. George Orwell wrote some brilliant shiz on political language. (Break it down, Belle?)
 

::smiles:: I'm ready for my close up, Patriarch Overlords...legs closed or open?

smirk
 

for some reason, "fembot" makes me think of The Stepford Wives, although probably in modern parlance they would be more accurately described as "wifebots".

go, go bimbot!
 

"I'm not sure I could identify a sexbot or a fuckbot as I believe these are generic terms used to illustrate how (some) men identify certain kinds of women - i.e. not as people but simply in terms of penis fodder.

They're not terms I would use to descibe a woman as they're dehumanising but I would possibly use them as a kind of shorthand to illustrate misogynistic attitudes. "

Bingo. Both terms describe an attitude toward women, or the status of women in the patriarchy. I've never seen it use to describe actual women. If someone did use it in such a manner, they missed the point.
 

so, sex- or fuckbot is a term to indicate what some men feel is a perfectly desirable woman?

how do we know men feel that way?

I have to say, I have never heard a fellow say to me "damn, look at that fine-ass sexbot!" "so, Heidi, do you know any single fuckbots?"

which, you know, doesn't mean they don't feel that way. I just don't know how I'd ascertain that they do.

does the suffix -bot connote promiscuity?
 

from a comment at IBTP:

But then I remembered that patriarchy confers economic rewards on sexbot sisters

I'm not sure how to interpret that comment, in light of what Witchy mentioned here.
 

"is a "sexbot" "sex-positive"?"

According to certain radicals, I suppose so.

...which only proves how little the know about what "sex positive" really means.
 

"so, sex- or fuckbot is a term to indicate what some men feel is a perfectly desirable woman?"

I believe it's more a matter of being a woman who intentionally presents herself in a manner that men typically find sexually appealing. Particularly if they profit from said presentation.
 

They aren't terms men use. And, I don't believe that they are used to describe a woman who profits from being "sexually appealing", but rather the way such a woman is viewed by a patriarchical society.

It's a derogatory term used to describe what patriarchy teaches men to value in women - which is their physical appearance, & their availability to be used for male pleasure. Patriarchy does not teach them to value women as human beings. For example, a "hot chick", a stripper, a porn star, a "boytoy" pop singer et al - isn't a woman with feelings, intellect and needs and desires of her own, she's a thing that only exists for male use. And she's only useful as long as she remains the same.

As another example - people freaked out when Britney shaved her head. Why? Because she's a sexbot who's only supposed to want to make men want to have sex with her. She doesn't have the right to alter her appearance in such a way as to lower her "fuckability" level.

It's an insult against patriarchy, not "sex-pos" feminists.

It's not talking about specific women, at least imo. I can't speak for everyone who's ever used the term.
 

AP - what post is that Twisty quote from? sans context, it's hard to tell what she might be getting at.
 

yay wifebots! Cookies anyone?
 

it's in a comment by Betsy in the "sisterhood" post.

here's the link, Vera:

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/02/26/sisterhood/#comment-38871
 

"I was aware in writing the post that someone could be both brainy and a sexbot (though it still is the case that every hour a woman dedicates to making herself over in the image of the patriarchy is an hour less to excel in studies, or accomplish anything else worth while), and it did give me hesitation."

Puke...you know, maybe I am gifted or something, but I CAN read while getting my hair done...

And G-M-R? Man her hate on for Belle is stunning...
 

What robots lack is autonomy; secondarily, to the extent sexbots are deemed to be autonomus, they're complicit in oppression. Either way, it's not a compliment.
 

ren - we are not going to discuss Belle and Ginmar's deeply complicated relationship here.

tempting, but no.
 

Puke...you know, maybe I am gifted or something, but I CAN read while getting my hair done...

well, yeah - is "sexbot" a physical presentation? a state of mind? a complex of behaviors? a label?

"they think she's a sexbot/they made her a sexbot" is different from "I think she's a sexbot", which is different from "I'm a sexbot"...

(just thinking out loud, no real point)

should we judge a 'bot by its cover?
 

If she's thought to be identifiable by appearance, the idea is that only a person lacking autonomy (or some species of free will), or willingly complicit in oppression, would physically present in a certain way.
 

"they think she's a sexbot/they made her a sexbot" is different from "I think she's a sexbot"

Yes. The term isn’t only or mainly used to describe patriarchal perceptions of sexbots (i.e., “they think”). The person using the term is hirself making an attribution (“I think”).
 

For example, a "hot chick", a stripper, a porn star, a "boytoy" pop singer et al - isn't a woman with feelings, intellect and needs and desires of her own, she's a thing that only exists for male use. And she's only useful as long as she remains the same.

And so, as feminists, we should acknowledge that women who do appear to fit some stereotype DOES have feelings, intellect, needs, and desires of her own. And we should respect her right to determine for herself how she dresses, who she fucks and when, and all the rest of it.
 

"It's an insult against patriarchy, not "sex-pos" feminists."

My turn for the "bingo"! ;)
 

If it’s not an insult to call someone a sexbot, it at least suggests she leads a lesser life. If her choices are determined from outside, & aren’t her own, then she lacks qualities that make us fully human, such as the capacity for responsible action. No one need take a robot’s opinions seriously, & the implication is that sexbots are no different. Paternalists conclude that it’s permissible to coerce her in ways that others shouldn’t be. To the extent that she does act autonomously, her choices are deemed perverse & complicit in oppression. Where I come from that’s an insult, either way.

This whole business is grating, but there is a real question here, or several. First, free people, in complete control of themselves, do sometimes chose forms of life that limit their autonomy, e.g., people in the military, religious orders, etc. Their choices ordinarily are entitled to a measure of respect, but they aren’t exempt from evaluation. Second, we all are to some degree products of our culture. This is where most cultural criticism, feminist or otherwise, begins. Our preferences are formed under conditions not entirely of our choosing. Paternalists of all stripes, who tend to imagine that they’re specially free of overweening cultural influences, conclude that it’s OK to use state power to re-form other, more benighted people’s preferences. This is the nub of the thing; suffice it to say that a lot of us disagree, or at least have questions. Finally, there are arcane questions about free will, which apply equally to anti-sexbots & sexbots. There are all kinds of other, finer distinctions between degrees & forms of freedom & autonomy, all of which tend to get thrown together indiscriminately in these discussions.
 

wait! fuck! i've been DISSED!!

oh, right, it's just g-m-r, never mind.
 

bwahaha. okay, you made me look, goddamit. "Sisterhood!!" oh, that's...fabulous.

“When women hate women, it is only men hating women by proxy.”

Fabulous!

But, meanwhile, I am a snivelling toady whom she recommends (to g-m-r, filled with rage that i am apparently sullying her good name) ignoring.

So, she's speaking there as a proxy, am I right? Kickass.

And yeah, of -course- that post was all about my calling out her cred because she "loves her father" (!) and is "from the wrong class." (!!)

It must be nice to be that disingenuous. Makes life so much easier.

Or, not. On second thought: I'll pass.

-flick-
 

ok - ginmar I'm not touching. just not gonna go there.

but Twisty's paean to not-my-nigel-keit? please, feel free.
 

"When women hate women, it is only men hating women by proxy."

How very Heart of her.

Jeez.

So does that mean when she hates on other women, she's only doing it because she's a Handmaiden of the Patriarchy? And, here I thought it was 'for our own good.'
 

Ginmar is an anagram of "Margin", isn't it? I've always assumed so.
 

this is not a thread about Ginmar!
 

"And so, as feminists, we should acknowledge that women who do appear to fit some stereotype DOES have feelings, intellect, needs, and desires of her own. And we should respect her right to determine for herself how she dresses, who she fucks and when, and all the rest of it. "

Agreed. This comes back to the simple fact that all feminists will never agree on all things, but we need to find some common ground if we expect the movement to have continued existence. Like I always say, our goals are the same. We are not each other's enemies.
 

"How very Heart of her."

Wait. I'm confused. Wasn't that Twisty? Or was that intended to be a whack at Twisty by comparing her to Heart?
 

"It's a derogatory term used to describe what patriarchy teaches men to value in women - which is their physical appearance, & their availability to be used for male pleasure. Patriarchy does not teach them to value women as human beings."

Ok, fair enough. But what about women who enjoy using their physical appearance and enjoy being used for male pleasure as long as they enjoy it as well? What about those women? Do we really have the right to tell them they can not behave that way as long as they have another choice?

That's what feminism is supposed to be about to me. Giving women choice.
 

Vera:

"the simple fact that all feminists will never agree on all things, but we need to find some common ground if we expect the movement to have continued existence"

but you see, thats the problem. some folks are not willing to ever get over the fact that "sexbots can be feminists too" long enough to even CALL them feminists, let alone WORK with them on anything.

"THis is OUR movement, don't you DARE taint it, slut!" That attitude is very real, and very out there.
 

""THis is OUR movement, don't you DARE taint it, slut!" That attitude is very real, and very out there."

And it's cases like that that just make me want to reach out, pat them on the head, and say, "You gotta learn to SHARE." "Be nice to the other kiddies and they'll be nice to you, ok?"
 

"this is not a thread about Ginmar!"

Who's ginmar?

WV-orfiz. Well. really.
 

Vera,
Thanks for taking my point despite my poor grammar. :)
 

back to topic: well, there was this, from Guess Who:

The point of the story was to expose the (rather successful) political strategy utilised by Camp Wasp, coz, you know, the bumblebees tend to frown upon dressing up like a fuckbot and pandering to the patriarchy, being the unfun side of things and all.

"You missed the subtle part."

from guess where:

http://ginmar.livejournal.com/988557.html

So, okay, "fuckbot" is just something women can "dress up like" in order to "pander to the patriarchy."

And is something that proper feminists "frown on."

But, it's not meant to be insulting to women or nothin'. Just -certain women-, who make -certain choices.- Which aren't their fault, anyway, really, on account of it's just men doing it by proxy; likewise the "criticism" in no doubt done by proxy; no one is responsible for anything -except- "dressing up like a fuckbot;" we can all play an hour of recorded music and go home now, thankyoverymuch.
 

Meanwhile, Amber amber had found some quotes that nail what's wrong with this whole picture:

from someone called Audra Williams:

I said at a Mediawatch board meeting this weekend that I feel like it's impossible to get upset with young girls dressing in revealing clothing without also signing onto the notion that it's possible to dress as if you are sexually available. I would like to talk about this, because I feel like most people disagree with me but I can't find a way to separate those two streams of thought.

What I mean is, I feel like people around the table believed that girls were dressing as if they are sexually available, and I don't think it's POSSIBLE to dress as if you are sexually available.

I don't understand how the same feminist women who fought for the idea that the way someone dresses is NEVER a green light for sex can now say that teenage girls are "dressing like skanks" or use terms like "prosti-tots"?

I do, it's important to stress, also get really upset that girls seem to think their only value in the world is their physical appearance, for sure. It's important to note that, and I'm glad Stoof mentioned it.

and from Maia at Alas:

B]eing sexual and being an object of desire are not the same thing.

Of course this conflation is hardly rare. There are many, many different ways women are taught that for us being sexual is being desired, rather than desiring. It is very hard to shake this idea off entirely. Women who do not fit the conventional idea of what is desirable have no way to be sexual.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be wanted, and I imagine most people find being found sexually attractive a turn on. The problem is that women's sexuality is reduced to our desirability, and the extent to which we conform to a code of desirability, defines whether or not we're sexual.

Women can't fight this by changing what we look like and particularly not by criticising what other women look like. Instead we need to reject any analysis which buys into the idea that women's sexuality and appearance are one and the same and to talk about women's desires and sexual agency, so that the next generation of girls knows that what they want matters.
 

"There is nothing wrong with wanting to be wanted, and I imagine most people find being found sexually attractive a turn on. The problem is that women's sexuality is reduced to our desirability, and the extent to which we conform to a code of desirability, defines whether or not we're sexual.

Women can't fight this by changing what we look like and particularly not by criticising what other women look like. Instead we need to reject any analysis which buys into the idea that women's sexuality and appearance are one and the same and to talk about women's desires and sexual agency, so that the next generation of girls knows that what they want matters. "


oh HELL yeah. Stomp, clap, stomp.
 

the bumblebees tend to frown upon dressing up like a fuckbot and pandering to the patriarchy,

but, does anyone consciously do this?

"huh, yeah, this outfit is pretty cute - but I was looking for something with a little less agency..."

"do these jeans make me look like a fuckbot?"

"-bot" is a suffix of derision, not an identity. at least that's what I'm leaning towards.
 

"the bumblebees tend to frown upon dressing up like a fuckbot-'

'but, does anyone consciously do this? "

Raises hand. Goes with the job.
 

well, sure, ren - but are you going for maximum sexy ("body-conscious", revealing, eye-catching, barely-street-legal) or maximum helpless/stupid/vapid/empty?
 

"Wait. I'm confused. Wasn't that Twisty? Or was that intended to be a whack at Twisty by comparing her to Heart?"

Ok, nm, forgive my ignorance. I am clear now. I guess next time I'll just take the damn time to figure it out myself.
 

"the simple fact that all feminists will never agree on all things, but we need to find some common ground if we expect the movement to have continued existence"

but you see, thats the problem. some folks are not willing to ever get over the fact that "sexbots can be feminists too" long enough to even CALL them feminists, let alone WORK with them on anything.

Yeah, that's the rub; and that's not limited to feminism either, that uh dynamic.

It takes two to tango; some people--not many, not the majority, but a few, always-- simply aren't interested. At All. It's their way or the highway, y punto. And the sooner the rest of us figure that out, I think the better off we'll all be, really.
 

AP: maximum sexy, of course, but some people cannot or willnot see that as anything BUT maximum vapid, so on...
 

Sorry, Faith... I'm running on West Coast time. And, all I meant was that I've seen Heart use that technique a lot--the idea that women can't (insert shitty action here) because they can't help their pretty little heads about it!! (Unless, they are Belledame, apparently. She's got some sort of Get Out of Patriarchy Free card, which enables her to be an asshole in her own right. Lucky her.)
 

"Sorry, Faith"

Not a problem. Like I said, I could have figured it out on my own.
 

"-bot" is a suffix of derision, not an identity. at least that's what I'm leaning towards.

Now, sure, but targets of the insult, like RE here, inevitably will be tempted to appropriate it ironically as an identity. And some people will be dim enough to take that as confirmation of their original judgment.
 

So, like, what counts as NOT being a fuckbot/fembot/sexbot outfit?
 

women can't (insert shitty action here) because they can't help their pretty little heads about it!! (Unless, they are Belledame, apparently. She's got some sort of Get Out of Patriarchy Free card, which enables her to be an asshole in her own right. Lucky her.)

Isn't it nifty?

I'm thinking "nerve strike."

altho', she did say I was "toadying," i think, so presumably that means y'know to my Ev0l Male Overlords (which does not btw include my father, because, unlike Twisty, or anyone else in the damn world, I have no familial love for me da or other special male personages in my life whatsoever). so perhaps i -do- get off the hook. maybe she's just calling me "snivelling" because she -really cares-.

Personally, I'm fairly confident that even if every male person was wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow, I still wouldn't be able to stand her ass, but hey, maybe they'd be controlling me through some sort of -undead- proxy. Maybe that's it. Yeah.
 

So, like, what counts as NOT being a fuckbot/fembot/sexbot outfit?

I dunno, but I bet one of those "modesty" sites that TF -also- likes to sneer at probably has some very specific ideas.

I think as long as it's y'know not-tight pants and a loose-fitting not-pink top that doesn't sport cleavage or glitter or bare belly or nothin' (and no makeup or other classically femmey adornments, and comfy flat shoes), you're okay.

For now, anyway.

(is that -gel- in your hair? Tsk. tsk.)
 

But, what if you wear all that and some dude STILL wants to fuck you? Do you have to turn in a token to the Proper Feminist Police to pay your Sexbot fine?
 

(And, where can I get me some of this Zombie proxy action? I want to blame all my bad deeds on Cole Porter.)
 

I'm Sexboticus!
 

Veronica: Just don't pretend you like giving him head, because -no woman does.-
 

"But what about women who enjoy using their physical appearance and enjoy being used for male pleasure as long as they enjoy it as well? What about those women? Do we really have the right to tell them they can not behave that way as long as they have another choice?

That's what feminism is supposed to be about to me. Giving women choice. "


The word "fuckbot" or "sexbot" isn't talking about the woman it's talking about the attitude toward her and the stereotypes about her.

Therefore her "choice" in the matter is entirely ignored.

Do you think a misogynist or an exclusionary feminists cares at all what the woman likes?

No. They care about their agendas. The misogynist wants to use her and the exclu-fem wants to stop her, but neither of them are paying any attention to her, or what she wants.
~~~~~~~~~~~

Ren

"some folks are not willing to ever get over the fact that "sexbots can be feminists too" long enough to even CALL them feminists, let alone WORK with them on anything. "

Agreed, so, fuck 'em. They can have their exclu-fem fortress of isolation. I don't care. I *am* willing to look at other points of view, and consider all options. And I want to be around and work with other feminists who feel the same.

Which is why I'm adamant that I am not surrendering the word feminist to exclu-fems (and yes, I'm going to use that new word forever ;) ).
 

The word "fuckbot" or "sexbot" isn't talking about the woman it's talking about the attitude toward her and the stereotypes about her.

But some people are talking about the woman. A set of traits (clothes, presentation, etc.) picks out a class of women, about which misogynists have bad attitudes & harbor negative stereotypes. You’re saying that “sexbot” is at least neutral about the traits, & just criticizes the misogynists. I take your word for it that there are people like that, but they’re far from the whole picture. You acknowledge that some exclusionists deny that sexbots can be feminists; I don’t think they mean it as a compliment, or are only commenting on male attitudes. The word wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t used to derogate a whole class of women, deny their capacity to think for themselves or accuse them of complicity with oppression.
 

"So, like, what counts as NOT being a fuckbot/fembot/sexbot outfit?"

Below the knee skirts, no pants of any sort (not even cargo pants), nothing that defines the breasts (think: cape dresses worn by Amish and Mennonite women), sleeves to the elbow, gathered waist skirts and dresses, as princess seams and a-line cuts define breast, waist and hips. No knits, as they tend to cling. Cordoroy in the winter, cotton broadcloth in the summer.
No heels or sheer stockings.
Dowdy as all get out but I tell you what, it's comfortable, especially here in the South where it gets hot. Give me a cotton dress over pants or shorts any day.

Unfortunately for the antisexbots, this particular dress code is the one adopted by many Fundamentalist Christian churches, particularly the Charismatics, who are pretty much anti-feminist. SO I guess they'll just have to wear something ugly and call that NotSexbotWear. Camoflauge cargo pants and their brother's abandoned chamois-cloth shirt.
 

Ooh, what about those One-Piece Worksuits that plumbers and janitors wear??
 

Camoflauge cargo pants and their brother's abandoned chamois-cloth shirt.

I LIKE to wear stuff like that, and I'm STILL (apparently) a sexbot!
 

FOr the record, I've never heard an average guy (you know, the one who think about fucking all the time, not those feminist guys) ever call me, or any other embarassment to feminist women a "fuckbot". They are usually too busy trying to get a phone number to do so. I have however heard feminists call such women, directly, fuckbots.
 

Well, what's right out...

-Dresses of any sort. Skirts might be okay. Probably must be long and flowing. Definitely not shorter than, oh, let's say an inch above the knees. But if they're short, they can't be flowy, because then you might get a Marilyn Monroe moment. But no tight skirts either, they're uncomfortable. So yeah, long and flowing.

-No tight pants. Jeans might be okay, but don't wear them with tank tops, plaid, or anything else that might make you look "butch" (read: male).

-Cargo pants might be iffy. Practical, but again... masculine. Painter/carpenter pants have the same issue, I imagine.

-No capris. You know why.

-DEFINITELY no leggings. If you're [fat] "differently proportioned" (we are feminists, no fatphobia here!), men will think you are ugly [and they will be right]. If you are conventionally sexy, they will be able to SEE ALL. The gaze! It burns us!

-No tank tops, no V-necks, no belly tops, no tight T-shirts, and nothing that might accentuate or draw attention to your breasts. Unless you're in a wymyn-ynly space, in which case you should probably be topless. We're all [asexual] "lesbians" who definitely won't be gazing at you, so don't worry!

-No high heels. No boots higher than the ankle [(you don't want to look like a sexbot, do you?)]. Birkenstocks are NOT FUNNY. We are not a strawfeminist. Sneakers are okay.

-You must wear at least one political slogan, button, or other paraphernalia on you at all times. Unless it's a slogan we disagree with.

-Nothing frilly or pink... but what are you, afraid of your femininity? Do you want to be A MAN? Well? Well?

So... what CAN you wear? I'm thinking all black, jeans and an oversized sweater.

((I am, of course, joking. ;))

Captcha: Oiour, the mourning wail of my wardrobe.
 

Well, if you want the cynical viewpoint...
Sexbot - woman who is more conventionally attractive than me, which hurts my fee-fees
Fuckbot - Woman who seems to enjoy sex, the shameless hussy
Fembot - Never did understand what that one signified outside of an Austin Powers movie. Conventionally feminine, maybe?
When feminists start using any of these terms on each other something has gone very wrong with their sense of sisterhood, in my opinion.

Side note - is "bot' the new "gate"? Can we add it to any word just for shit and giggles?
 

Also, enough already with the insect analogies. The whole "part of the hive" implication is, well, kind of creepy. I didn't sign up to be part of a hivemind, thanks.
Is that was this is really all about, in the end? The idea that individualism is somehow harmful to the cause? Because socialism already had it's little experiments with THAT idea and I think it's pretty much generally agreed upon that it didn't work out so well. Cultural Revolution, anyone?
Audra Williams gets the cookie for pointing out what should be obvious but sadly doesn't seem to be for many people.
You know, in my younger days I dressed like a "sexbot" all the damn time. Don't do it so much any more what with thigh-high boots and hot pants not being terribly work appropriate and all. However, I was never going for vapid, I was going for sexy. The object of the exercise was to look hot and pick up a guy of equal hotness. Not to please the menz, but because I wanted to get laid and my standards in male companions are insanely high. Does that make me a "fuckbot" too? Does the idea that sometimes it's the woman who wants to get laid even register with some of these people?
 

well, being attractive to people you are attracted to apparently can be. Meh, nature? Who cares about THAT...
 

" If you are conventionally sexy, they will be able to SEE ALL. The gaze! It burns us!"
Snort. For those of us with vaginas can never have the gaze, oh no, heaven forbid. None of us EVER look at men in a blatantly lustful way without regard for the sacredness of their personhood and all that crap. And those of us who like women NEVER check them out, being gaze-free as we are. As decent feminist women we all choose our sexual partners by compiling lists of our political beliefs and comparing to see if they match. We would NEVER look at the person's ass before deciding if we want to hook up with them, for we are better people than that. And the idea that some of us might actually enjoy being gazed upon - oh, the horrors! Clearly we have been brainwashed!
I'm starting to think that some of these people would be much happier in one of those Mennonite colonies that Rootie was obliquely referring to.
 

Ren - points at hypothetical radfem dating strategy above.
 

godbot cassandrabot - don'tbot bebot suchbot abot gatebot! don'tbot turnbot thisbot intobot Botgate!

bot.

I sometimes feel like an undercover fuckbot, is the crazy thing. maybe you don't have to "dress up like a fuckbot" to BE a fuckbot.

I'm Spartibot!
 

Fuckbot - Woman who seems to enjoy sex, the shameless hussy

although I started to wonder about this - is it that Ms. Fuckbot (as is purported to exist) enjoys sex, or is it that she enjoys something that men also happen to enjoy, and because men enjoy it, it should not occur?

there seems to be an undercurrent (though not explicitly stated, so I may be reading too much into it all) of "if men might like it, better not do it" through all of this.

does that sum up feminism for some folks?
 

is the question as simple as "is there a dress code or not?"

is it assumed that once one comes into a higher feminist consciousness, she will shed her sexbot getup like a snake sheds its skin?
 

"does that sum up feminism for some folks?"

Ouch. Not in my corner. I'd say that would be a good definition for fuckbot or sexbot but certainly not feminism.
 

we better be careful - too much of this discussion and we'll all die of BOTulism.
 

Audra Williams was the doyenne of Canadian internet feminism and discussion board leftism, presiding over the founding and growth of Rabble.ca's babble forums as moderator for several years, until internal Rabble politics forced her out and created a chain-reaction discussion board schism. She also ran the Marigold boards (I haven't checked on that in a while) which is specifically for Canadian feminism. She runs a website development company that caters to leftish organizations.

although I started to wonder about this - is it that Ms. Fuckbot (as is purported to exist) enjoys sex, or is it that she enjoys something that men also happen to enjoy, and because men enjoy it, it should not occur?

Well, that's an uncharitable way of putting it, but the idea is similar. A lot of the Internet radical feminism is based on the idea that men have been stealing women's creativity and energy. So any positive interaction, particularly sexual, must be carefully examined for signs of such stealage. Usually, sexual interaction is found guilty of that, and triage must be performed.
 

It was not my intention to be uncharitable. I should have been more careful.
 

a further thought on sex- or fuck-bot:

the term seems to imply not only that the individual not only spends an inordinate amount of time on ensuring her appearance conforms to "standards" (varying as they do from week to week) but also has purged herself of (or mabye never developed?) any desires of her own, and so is available to be filled with the desires of others.

although I never really "got" the whole appearance thing (still don't), I absolutely tried my heart out, with no fewer than two partners (one male and one female) to completely sublimate my own desires to theirs. (reasons? well, I had my reasons. it seemed like a good idea at the time...)

despite my very best efforts, I found it impossible to accomplish.

Back in the day, while deeply entangled in the folie a deux with my female partner, I was not at all het-sexy (does this flannel shirt make my ass look patriarchal?) but I was damn sure focusing all my desires on her desires.

was I a lezsexbot? could such a thing exist?

with Patrick I made more of an effort (unsuccessfully, I imagine) to look the part. but that was all I changed, really. I was still all about please-the-partner. at all times, in all ways.

I tried like hell to actually embody sexbot-ism. I failed miserably.
 

AP - You're an Englishbot. Hussy-like, but shy about it. Doesn't do to draw attention to oneself, you know.
OK. at the risk of provoking STFU responses...what's the deal with Belle and Gin? Haven't visited Gin's page recently so if there is some kind of war I must have missed it.
And then AP said...
"although I started to wonder about this - is it that Ms. Fuckbot (as is purported to exist) enjoys sex, or is it that she enjoys something that men also happen to enjoy, and because men enjoy it, it should not occur?

there seems to be an undercurrent (though not explicitly stated, so I may be reading too much into it all) of "if men might like it, better not do it" through all of this.

does that sum up feminism for some folks? "
That does seem to be the vibe I'm getting from some folks, and they're a tiny minority I suspect, but they're also a noisy minority. The real question is whether the rest of us are willing to let them set the terms of debate.
 

AP - You're an Englishbot. Hussy-like, but shy about it.

either the world's most reclusive hussy or the world's sluttiest recluse.

re: Belle and Gin - dude, ask one of them personally, if you gotta.
 

AP I'm kind of scared to to be honest, and I don't think Gin likes me very much any more.
 

you & me both.
 

The scared to ask or the no longer on the popular list?
 

both, though I don't think I was ever really on her "popular" list.

either way - it's just none of my business, and I don't like making it look like I might possibly be even flirting around the edges of talking personal trash. hence, the rather constant reminders that this is not a thread about Ginmar.

once upon a time I was not so careful. and even though Belle is my heart, and it feels disloyal to say so - I regret not being careful in the past.

so, on being a fuckbot - the thing is, no matter how hard you try to really be that, eventually some thought or another springs into your head:

"I have to pee."

"Is that a spider on the wall?"

"I could really go for a reuben sandwich."

behold! agency. independent thought. ideas which do not focus on one's partner's needs. and there they are. maybe they're not, you know, equivalent to a cohesive and articulate post-apocalopatriarchal vision of the future, coalescing in a flash of genius, athena-like, out of your head, but nonetheless, even their humble presence negates the "-bot" suffix.
 

"Your hipbone is very sharp and it's jabbing into my belly...ouch!Also, please tie your hair back, as pretty as it is I'd really rather not eat it."
Yup, guess they can't call be a fuckbot, then.
Thing is, I suspect that the term is often used not in it's "correct" sense, but as a kind of generic insult applied to any woman who looks like she is "attempting to appeal to the male gaze". Hence, Ren = fuckbot even though it's plenty obvious that she looks the way she does as much to please herself as to please anyone else. Anyone in spiky heels = fuckbot, even if the woman in question just has a foot fetish of her very own (the heels critique always cracks me up because I'm totally comfy in my Manolos, it's platforms and Doc Martens that make my feet want to cry).
 

CS: it's not that big a deal as far as I'm concerned.

you can go here for the main shouting match, though.


antip: you know, i get that you don't want to be dragged in. And I don't consider you "disloyal." That said, I am getting the sense that you have the impression that the fact that I talked trash about her on your blog is the reason for your being on her shitlist, whereas if I hadn't, you might be...on friendly terms?

Because, well, if so, maybe, but...

eh.

I don't know. Me, I would think, anyone who was truly amenable to actually y'know listening would take the trouble to make distinctions between so and so's trash-talking friend and so and so herself, who's really an okay person. -I- do.

I'm glad you admire her. I'm sure she's got plenty to admire about her. And surely at minimum I understand that you don't want to be, again, dragged into someone else's fight.

I really can't say any more about my feelings on this without getting into the "trash talking" (on her) that you wish to avoid.

Just:

Well, (deep breath)

Just in general, as you know, I have absolutely no desire to be a member of a club that emphatically doesn't want me as a member, or even feel particularly sympathetic or inclined to reach out to such a club. It's not an impulse I understand, I have to say.

and, yeah, sometimes it hurts when -it appears to me-, very possibly incorrectly, that someone is putting my pretty-unconditionally offered friendship on a more or less equal par with someone who, at best, hasn't given the someone the time of day.

that's not really about -her,- though, you know. I don't really give a crap either way, about her, at the end of the day, and certainly don't expect you to join in my nasty diatribes, or tolerate anything you don't feel comfortable with on your own blog.
 

oops, sorry, CS, bad link. it's here.

per lezsexbot: well, yeah, i don't think such a thing is commonly acknowledged. if anything it'd probably be interpreted as y'know those women who make out with each other for the benefit of a gazing male.

i mean, it's really about the idea that one does something for someone else, as opposed to oneself. Where it keeps getting hung up is:

1) the idea that one never subsumes oneself -to other women,- or if so, that this too might be problematic

2) the idea that the subsuming is always all about sex.

'tain't necessarily so ime. either.
 

(start around post #60, CS)
 

As another example - people freaked out when Britney shaved her head. Why? Because she's a sexbot who's only supposed to want to make men want to have sex with her. She doesn't have the right to alter her appearance in such a way as to lower her "fuckability" level.

I think that's fair; otoh--well, tbh i don't really give a shit about Britney, so why am i even commenting on this...

eh, just: well, again, i think the language is not helpful. There must be a way to communicate one's displeasure with the let's say -marketing- of people like Britney, or the look that's considered "hot," without turning it into, well, what it often turns into.

I mean, I dunno. And, I -read- go fug yourself (occasionally--it palls after a while), but it y'know doesn't pretend to be anything it's not.

TF (by the way, is she not the person who coined the term, "sexbot?" certainly she popularized it in the femsphere) clearly has at least some sort of vestigial interest in fashion; why not just admit it ffs? She thinks capris are an affront to tasteful aesthetic sensibilities everywhere; this is not particularly congruent with any sort of radical feminist justification that i am familiar with, but, what the hell, you know. -If- she'd cop to it. But, no.

In general, once you start talking about a woman's appearance, well, yeah, it's a -really- fine line between that and yer basic good ol' fashioned sexist trashing, slut-baiting, what you will. Do it at your discretion; just, i find it a bit rich when the same people turn around and start calling other people "hypocrites" for not being sufficiently feminist, or indeed for wearing the items they deem Not Feminist.

but i mean: love the sinner, hate the sin just. doesn't. work. i don't think. and all too often, "no no we're not making fun of -her-" is an all-too convenient ass-cover. speaking of which, case in point: the thong-baring photo post, i.e. let's all laugh at a woman's nonconsensually photo'd asscrack, except of course we're really laughing at PATRIARCHY, not -her.-

or y'know, over to my spot, yellowhammer was talking about a "friend" of hers, a dude, who'd make cracks about fat women in her presence and then lean over and say, solemnly, but, I'm just criticizing IT, not HER.

"Oh."

I dunno. As soon as someone starts "criticizing" my clothing choices, "for my own good" no less, several thoughts immediately go through my head:

1) Hi, Mom!

2) Oh, wait. You're not Mom. Who the fuck -are- you, now?

3) And this is any of your business because...?

4) You know, I -was- feeling really good about how I looked; thank you so much for disabusing me of that

5) I think I really violently dislike you.

None of these, needless to say, are really conducive for building constructive feminist (or any) dialogue.

Just sayin'.

But then, unlike the rest of the planet, I are a sensitive little flower, no doubt.
 

(i kind of like "exclu-fems." especially as in: ex-clue. As in: the phone, it was ringing, you ceased to pick it up...)
 

BD - If you is a sensitive little flower then it's amazing that any of the rest of us ever muster enough courage to leave the house, comparatively speaking.
My impression is that the popularisation of "sexbot" is a Twisty thing, since she seems fond of the term. And it is nice and catchy, indeed, but when it is indiscriminately used on any woman in a pair of heels...well, that's when things get nasty.
 

Also, BD (whose multiple posting habit I have picked up), will check out the link, thanks. I had been wondering what happened there for a while. I've been too scared to go back to Gin's blog for a while, honestly, since I tend not to want to argue with people if I was ever on friendly terms with, and I was nervous I would see myself being trashed too. As tough as I talk sometimes I am wounded surprisingly easily by those I actually like (those I don't like on the other hand can kiss my ass, hence MRA's can flame away with no effect).
 

(those I don't like on the other hand can kiss my ass, hence MRA's can flame away with no effect).

Yeah, in general I tend to look at them with a mixture of mild incredulity, revolted amusement and finally, -flick,- make it DO something.

although as disruptors they can be intensely annoying.

y'know what though: they HATE being deleted or ignored. which works out nicely, 'cause i don't want 'em in my space, sooo...
 

oh, yeah, I suppose it'd be fair to include the thread she originally took umbrage at, here.

and you can probably find the threads that led to THAT by following the cookie crumb trail from there;

and before that, it's more sort of like,

"In the beginning, the earth was formed, and it was very hot. Then the dinosaurs came! Then they all died, and..."

it's really not y'know a personal THING, though, at least as far as i'm concerned.

email me if you want to talk more, i know antiprincess doesn't want to get the thread derailed. lilith_sincere@yahoo.com
 

Belle - I have to admit that I sometimes pick fights with them on purpose. It's kind of like a kid trapping a bug in a jar in the sunlight - unkind, but amusing in a childish sort of way. Hugo's blog is the ideal place to do that.
You know what's amazing? Byrd dude followed me over to my blog and left a few comments and when I asked him to go away he actually did! That I did not expect.
Will e-mail you to prevent thread derailment.
 

well, here's the thing - if I really truly believe there should be no "sides", no "factions", no schism in feminism, I have to, if you will, be the change I seek. which is,of course, impossible to actually accomplish 100% of the time.

unfortunately the desire to accomplish that even 50% of the time causes internal tsouris I didn't even plan on.

I feel like my efforts to turn the other cheek to someone who has nothing but contempt for me makes it look like I'm mooning someone who really respects and loves me. which, you know, not what I had in mind.
 

I know. It's okay.

Look--

I just don't know how much that particular...thing...has to do with -feminism- per se, you know?

I mean, if someone were acting that way and didn't have any particular political bent at all, how would you respond?

Just a thought.