The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Weird #GamerGate Angle: ‘Emotional Fulfillment Through Love of a Robot’?

Posted on | December 30, 2014 | 75 Comments

What’s the most hateful stereotype of videogamers? That they are losers, retreating into a fantasy world as psychological compensation for their real-life failures. It’s kind of like the stereotype of feminists as ugly women who are angry because men don’t like them.

As we view the #GamerGate controversy, then, it’s interesting to see how these two groups interact. Of course, the liberal media have sided with the feminists — because ugly angry women vote Democrat — which means that conservatives are obligated to defend the videogamers. So it’s easy for me to decide which side I’m on, even though I haven’t been “into” videogames since I was a college junior feeding quarters into the Pac Man machine at the Red Rooster Pub. Also, fighting feminists on the #GamerGate front doesn’t mean I agree with every argument made by everyone else fighting feminists on the same front.

Which brings us to this comment, apparently from a gamer, naming feminist anti-gamer Anita Sarkeesian and . . . well, it’s weird:

As ridiculous as my statement is going to sound, I’m pretty sure that Anita [Sarkeesian] is trying to prevent us from experiencing the joys of 2D women. The kind of joys man Japanese men who’ve rejected the pig disgusting ways of 3D women already have.
There is nothing more frightening to these feminists than the idea of a man finding emotional fulfillment through love of a robot, or the idea of woman as opposed to an actual woman. Most of society is set up to shame men who don’t fall in line, also fall in love with a woman. Men who haven’t been approved by women are deemed other, and rejected from society.
The future waifus, and the Hatsune Miku occulus rift sex experiences take away one of feminism and women’s powerful weapons over the male gender. Their dominance over sexuality.
Once man is freed from the institutional forces which oppress him, and force him to find purpose in the approval of women, he will be free to pursue his own dreams.
Finally men will have no need to fight over women, as they will have something that replaces them the same way robots have replaced the male industrial work force of the world. Wars will be ended, and we will achieve world peace.
The masculine will be set free, allowed full creativity, and the world will enter a new enlightened age. We will explore Mars, Jupiter, and the furthers reaches of our solar system. Male and female will be united, working together towards a better future for humanity.
But only if we can free ourselves first.

Like I said, it’s weird, and some have speculated it may be a parody. Yet assume, arguendo, that this is an actual comment by an actual person who actually thinks that way. He is defending his own enjoyment of “2D women” — including animated characters and sex robots — by arguing that men are escaping oppression from “institutional forces” by their retreat into fantasy relationships.

Notice that the commenter uses the term waifu, which refers to a “fictional character . . . typically [in] an anime, manga, or video game” that a fan “is attracted to and considers a significant other.” This blurring of the line between fantasy and reality should raise alarms to any student of psychology, yet it is increasingly common. There are people for whom the characters in movies or TV shows are the most important people in their lives. There are fan sites devoted to, say, Harry Potter films or Orange Is the New Black, and some of these online fan communities have hundreds of members. Likewise, there are numerous sites devoted to Japanese anime series, where the members post their own drawings of the characters or write “fanfic” storylines.

The retreat into fantasy is increasingly common, as is the kind of blurring between fantasy and reality where fictional characters have a tremendous emotional significance for fans. This is really nothing new, nor is the phenomenon limited to males. Think about women who are obsessive fans of soap operas or romance novels, for example. Or think about people who are involved in the Society for Creative Anachronism, which began with Diana Paxson and Marion Zimmer Bradley, both influential early figures in the feminist neopagan movement. It would be hard to find a more perfect example of a retreat into fantasy — escapist regression — than people whose devotion to Arthurian legend leads them to spend their weekends dressed up in medieval costume, or feminists whose rejection of modernity leads them to witchcraft rituals with groups like the Covenant of the Goddess or the Reclaiming Collective.

OK, some guys are introverted and socially awkward or are otherwise disadvantaged vis-à-vis the pursuit of female companionship. From the perspective of such a male, he is “rejected from society” because he is not “approved by women.” From his perspective, female “dominance over sexuality” (their ability to refuse relationships with “undesirable” males like him) is among the “institutional forces which oppress him.”

Does that sound crazy? Yes. Is it crazier than the radical feminism of Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn Frye and Joyce Trebilcot? No.

The difference between these two varieties of craziness, however, is that being an advocate of radical feminist insanity is socially approved. There are some 90,000 U.S. college students being tutored in Women’s Studies classes taught by fanatical ideologues who have been rewarded with prestigious degrees and faculty tenure for their skill in articulating feminist lunacy. Anita Sarkeesian’s Feminist Frequency “is a 501(c)3 non profit charity,” contributions to which are tax deductible.

By contrast, opposition to feminism is effectively forbidden within academia (Larry Summers was forced to resign from Harvard University after he dared to question feminist dogma), and the organizational resources available to critics of feminism are scattered across a handful of conservative groups, none of which gets the kind of enthusiastic publicity that feminists like Sarkeesian get from the mainstream media. When A Voice for Men held a conference this year, they were harassed by feminists accusing them of being a hate group.

Given the remarkable cultural hegemony of feminism, and the consequent marginalization of feminism’s critics, should we be surprised to find that some disadvantaged males are unable to articulate their personal grievances without sounding crazy? No, this is not the least bit surprising. The fundamental goal of feminism is to deprive males of social support, to reallocate society’s resources in such a way as to disadvantage men in order to create “equality,” a term feminists define to suit themselves. And it is here, as we examine feminism’s ultimate objectives, that we discover their totalitarian purposes.

No amount of actual “equality” shall ever satisfy feminists and any attempt to placate them is doomed to fail for the same reason that Neville Chamberlain’s concessions to Hitler at Munich did not result in “peace for our time.” Once he had the Sudetenland, Hitler next annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia, which was the prelude for agitation about the Danzig Corridor, precipitating the blitzkrieg of Poland. Hitler’s ambition of world conquest could never be satisfied by any partial concession the Western democracies might make, because his ambitions included the destruction of Western democracy, per se.

The same is true of feminism, an anti-democratic totalitarian movement that is no less fanatically committed to the destruction of Western civilization than was Hitler himself. No matter how fluently feminists may speak the language of democracy, their campaigns to silence opposition betray their totalitarian purposes, and it is not difficult to find evidence of their limitless appetite for conquest. Women are now 33% more likely than men to earn four-year college degrees, but has this de facto female supremacy in academia put an end to feminist demands? Of course not. Instead, we find feminists claiming (despite all evidence to the contrary) that women are experiencing a “rape epidemic” on college campuses, manufacturing phony statistics to support their anti-male propaganda, and perpetrating the Rolling Stone gang-rape hoax at the University of Virginia — feminism’s very own “Reichstag fire,” with the role of Marinus van der Lubbe played by “Haven Monahan.”

None of this analysis relates directly to the comment by the male who retreats to a waifu fantasy or dreams of “finding emotional fulfillment through love of a robot,” perceiving actual women as “institutional forces which oppress him.” Clearly, such a perspective reflects psychiatric disturbances analogous to the delusions of “PIV is always rape, OK?” Yet a clear understanding of what feminism actually is helps us understand why so many young men are unable to find effective help for their problems. Feminism’s implacable anti-male hostility excludes the possibility that any man could ever deserve help or sympathy.

Feminism is essentially a philosophical justification of merciless sadism, encouraging women to believe that males deserve nothing but humiliation and destruction, to avenge injuries suffered by women. Feminists thus demand as women’s most fundamental right the incessant slaughter of unborn children (more than a million abortions are performed every year in the United States), the death of innocents being the bloody tribute of their hateful revenge. Feminists denounce motherhood and marriage as oppressive to women, because they believe any woman’s fulfillment of the roles of wife and mother can be possible only by her subjugation under male domination.

No sane man would seek “emotional fulfillment through love of a robot,” but as insane as that is, it’s really no more crazy than a man pursuing emotional fulfillment through love of a feminist.

To see a dishonest hate-monger like Anita Sarkeesian celebrated as an intellectual, and to see a perverted freak like Brianna Wu similarly celebrated as an icon of heroic womanhood, surely must cause honest and rational observers to conclude the world has gone mad.

Insanity has now become so pervasive that perhaps the only question people need to ask themselves is, “What kind of crazy am I?”





 

 

 

Comments

  • Adobe_Walls

    Don’t know about Creative Anachronism. Reenactors or Buckskinners provide a valuable service keeping our history alive. Going to a civil war reenactment helps bring all those books you’ve read alive.

  • http://goodstuffsworld.blogspot.com/ Good Stuff

    So… Is having sex with an ultra-realistic robot hooker cheating?

    For my own part, yes and no. Do I look at that old robot on ‘Lost In Space’ waving its tentacular arms around and get all hot and bothered? No. Not hardly. Now when I look at the image of Jeri Ryan playing the infamous borg, Seven-of-Nine on Star Trek Voyager? You better believe it! Just don’t tell my wife!

    http://goodstuffsworld.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-having-sex-with-robot-cheating.html

  • Adobe_Walls

    No matter how isolated, weird and socially maladjusted the gamers are even, if one considers them somewhat perverse, they have one redeeming value, they want to be left alone in their world and more importantly don’t to tell us how to live in ours. Unlike Harpy Feminists the gamers don’t tell others what they’re owed or how to think and live their lives. They believe in that patriotic of liberties, the right to be left alone.

  • Rob Crawford

    What do you think the SCA does? You can argue over which group has a higher share of “serious” people to clowns, but they do the same thing. The other groups have more focus, but…

    Holding a handful of nuts who were present at the group’s founding against the members 50 years later is ridiculous.

  • Wombat_socho

    I’m pretty sure most feminists are more intelligent than most domesticated animals. They’re crazy and evil, not stupid.

  • Wombat_socho

    Technically Seven of Nine was a cyborg.

  • Wombat_socho

    Nah, just earplugs.

  • Daniel Freeman

    RSM treats “crazy” and “wrong” as independent variables. His classic example is the TERFs; they’re not falling for that gender make-believe, but they’re right in a crazy way. (They treat transwomen kind of like how we would treat a case of “stolen valor.”)

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    He was amazing. It’s worth your time to watch the youtube vids of Dweezil Zappa playing Frank’s tunes with many of Frank’s former bandmates. Really good stuff.

    ( Look up [ Zappa Plays Zappa ] )

  • Adobe_Walls

    As I said I’m unfamiliar with the SCA. Until you’re reply I’d had no idea that were ”a handful of nuts present at the groups founding”. Did it take 50 years to get rid of them? At any rate good job.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady
  • Phil_McG
  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    I don’t care how they might try to dress it up — the idea of a man finding emotional fulfillment through love of a robot — masturbation is still just masturbation.

    Why that can’t really work is set up by the next line — Most of society is set up to shame men who don’t fall in line, also fall in love with a woman. Men who haven’t been approved by women are deemed other, and rejected from society — which is why Elliot Rodger is now dead, and took a few other people with him.

  • The Osprey

    What’s in the water? Fluoride, Mandrake!

    http://youtu.be/J67wKhddWu4

  • The Osprey

    A more descriptive name for her would have been 36-of-D.

  • Kirby McCain

    I still suspect Janet Reno is a man.

  • Andrew Stanbarger

    Like Rob, I am also familiar with the SCA. This is an organization with tens of thousands of past and present members around the world. Like all large groups, some of the people who participate belong in the ‘handful of nuts” category, but they are no more influential in the SCA than they are in eg: the Lions Club.

  • Andrew Stanbarger

    If some of those books you have read are medieval history, the SCA tries to fulfill that same function.

  • http://www.blackmailersdontshoot.com/ ChandlersGhost

    Ian Miles Cheong is an Asian who used to be a white supremacist and is now a social justice warrior. Does parody even exist anymore?

  • Ivan Ewan

    Yep, you pretty much nailed it there. Funnily enough, I’ve trained myself to be at least moderately charming, but I can’t think of a single good reason to trawl the lousy nightclubs every week. Joblessness, apathy, teetotalism, little chance of repeat encounters and a strongly introverted personality are all considerable reasons NOT to take part in the bloody nightclub CIRCUS.

    Case in point: it’s the new year, it’s 2am, and I’m working – at home – by choice. Is that society’s fault or mine?

    BTW I’m a gamer. But I’m not a gamer. I watch movies, that doesn’t make me a movier.

  • Ivan Ewan

    Thank you!

    You’ve identified the obvious-yet-discreet element which drives GamerGate momentum, I suppose.

    And in a sense, it’s the element which fundamentally defines ordinary conservatism.

  • Wombat_socho

    Cute, sexy killbots. With cat ears. 😉

  • Daniel Freeman

    Yes, but we’re Poe’s Law enforcement officers, so we’re jaded.

  • Exile1981

    The SCA is not re-enactment unless it’s middle ages with all the poor taken out of it, everyone is a lord or a lady – utopia crap, every 5 minutes some one will grope you with out asking or in anyway you wanting them too and the infighting and bickering is notorious.

    I used to play till a prince told me that in the real world he couldn’t get girls but in the sca he got all the sex he wanted and then some.

  • Andy Fox

    The desire/temptation for women to dominate men was prophesied in the Bible, in Genesis 3:16.

    https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Genesis+3:16, and footnotes 48 and 49.