Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Comes with free vat-girl warning
james_nicoll
Why vat-girls?

  • 1
(Deleted comment)
If your selection criteria is "people who unironically think this is a good idea", I'll even help.

Hold on. So if all men could have sex with as many women as they wanted, we'd have less wars?

GAHHHHHHH.

Likely "vat girls" because that's exactly how you'd expect to produce such male-aggression-soothing commodities.

What happens when the vat girls start to develop career ambitions? That's what I want to know.

Wait, did he put a memetic prophylaxis warning in his *own post*?

He did. Probably should have put one earlier, something like *** WARNING: EQUATING WOMEN WITH FINITE RESOURCES LIKE FOOD ***, but yes. He apparently knows he's being creepy, which I guess some would find admirable, but which I personally find deeply sad.

(Deleted comment)
Excessive union militancy?

But weird final recommendation. "Social democracy, population control, and a skewed sex ratio!"

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
I don't think I've ever heard unions blamed on women before. I stopped reading before I learnt what his ideal ratio of vat grown women to men who deserve them is. How many women do you have to grow to ensure all men, no matter how unfortunate will get a woman without in any way seeing them as a person? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1?

Probably only slightly more than 1 to 1, as long as the vat environments are carefully controlled (e.g. not quite enough oxygen) and the fetuses (and, later, children) are properly conditioned.

(Deleted comment)
Does he realize that one of the main evolutionary benefits of sexual selection is that it helps weed members of the species lacking the attributes necessary to attract a female, such as physical attractiveness, social skills, and productive ability, out of the gene pool?

Of course, I'm presuming that he's arguing for vat-girls out of personal need...


I don't a a rule read this guy's writings, but a common trope in the subgenre of geek misogyny is that women are in fact now selecting men with undesirable traits, unlike the noble qualities of the unjustly spurned writer, so his inability to get laid is a tragedy for Evolution itself.

(Deleted comment)
"Why vat-girls?"

I think the real answer is "JS's excessive palm calluses" but one is always interested in the ability of human rationalization to overpower human reason.

I am especially fond of the way he states that men have a biological need for a mate, but then act as if women do not have a similar need.

Also, ahem, a significant portion of the population is either completely or partially uinterested in partners of the same sex. Or do queer people not exist on vatgirl planet?

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
Words cannot describe my loathing of casual evolutionary psychologists. Not only are their theories usually garbage, they have this annoying tendency to think that we should actually augment our behavior/stop disapproving of harmful behavior because of their bullshit theory of how we used to be.

There were so many flaws in that piece, but the one that immediately jumped out at me was the "serial polygamy" thing. It was as though he believed that such men have many partners over their lifetimes, but the women they partner with have only one.

I mean, pregnancy is still dangerous, but it doesn't have a 100% kill rate.

I keep parsing that Value Added Tax girls, and just imagining the EU legalizing and taxing slavery.

I am highly amused by the theory that women that have experienced sexual abuse are, obviously, not to be considered as possible sexual partners, and are dismissed from the woman-pool.

As a committed serial-polygamist (that IS fancy speak for "has had more than one serious sexual relationship", right?) I am just as happy to be so dismissed; I've met and dated men with a similar attitude (one or two dates, nothing "serious") and it wasn't worth the trouble.

Obviously being traumatized means that you never want to have sex again, and is also the only reason you might ever not want to have sex.

It can lead to excessive union militancy.

Am I misreading this, or is he saying that men without vat girls will... join a union? Because unions are full of men for them to have sex with? And this would be a bad thing, why?

I understand that not everyone has my positive feelings toward unionization, but as a signal to start decanting women, this seems a bit odd.

I think he's saying that women's unreasonable demands have forced men who would otherwise be content with their lot to turn to militancy to increase their earning power to attract these unreasonable women.

(Deleted comment)
I couldn't even get to the vat-girls--I kept stubbing my toe on the assumption that guilt isn't a primal emotion but one that requires thought. It wouldn't be an emotion at all in that case.

This is actually a very clever proposal to smash patriarchy worldwide. The more a given society has severe male attitude problems, the more vatgirls it will be under internal pressure to decant. And the more eager this new majority will be to make the decanters recant the cant that got them to this pass in the first place. In some places, quite vigorously.

Mr Savard necessarily assumes a somewhat creepy and male-centric tone in his internet persona, because if he were to let the catgirl out of the vat about his true feminist revolutionary agenda, his targets would never implement it, and other male chauvinists from Salford to Saudi would see said catgirl coming before she got a chance to pounce.

I am free to blab, since all the world knows that fifty-seven point nine five seven percent of everything I say is the total and premeditated toot. So his agenda is, effectively, even more secret than it ever was before I posted.

You win my internets for today.

I have to agree with dd_b: most people here are criticizing (or making fun of) what they extrapolate from JS' post, not of what JS actually says.

JS does not advocate sex slavery, forced marriage, closing career choices for women, brain-stunting of women, or return to pre-modern economy where women had to marry or starve. In fact he is explicitely against most of these things. His proposal (which I had read in MAY permutations over last several years on rasfw) is simply this:

1. All men want to have sex on regular basis
2. Significant number of women either do not want sex at all, or go after successful men who end up with multiple partners, at the expense of less lucky males, most of them young (i.e. not yet successful)
2a. Gay male population is balanced by lesbian population, so if you consider only hetero males the above points stand
3. Young men who do not get laid regularly are likely to be aggressive. When there are enough of them (JS does not quantify "enough"), social unrest occurs
4. The way to prevent social unrest is to skew male-female ratio so that even with all career women/abuse victims/lesbians not marrying, and all groupies/gold diggers draping themselves over Bill Clintons of the world, no man lacks a wife. Or at least not enough men lack a wife to cause social unrest.
4a. "Vat-girls" is more of a self-deprecating joke. More than once JS said that other ways to skew male-female ratio are perfectly acceptable

So if you want to seriously criticize JS, you should concentrate on the points above. I think the biggest failure point is (3). I think JS is right about young men getting aggressive when they do not get laid due to genuine shortage of women, like currently in China. However, men who do not get laid because women do not want them is a somewhat unusual set. Among other things, they tend to be a) not physically aggressive and b) not good at organizing because they lack social skills. Meek losers behind Burger King counter who can't bring up themselves to talk to a woman do not organize revolutions[1]. If they are aggressive enough for carjacking and drug dealing, they HAVE girlfriends.

[1] Or unions for that matter. Not sure what problem JS has with unions, but I am quite certain successful union organizers do not lack in women.

BTW, I was willing to entertain a possibility that John Savard is talking hypothetically, and not due to being himself an utter sexual failure - until I saw this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/browse_frm/thread/232adf681ff8bc33/2ca203e3e26cc259

Look at post #96, particularly to second-to-last sentence.

Then read all responses, including mine (#100 and 131).

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
(Deleted comment)
Am I the only one, or do these eta males remind anyone of Woody Allen in "Casino Royale":

While sightseeing in London, Mata Bond is kidnapped by SMERSH in a giant flying saucer, and Sir James travels with Moneypenny to Casino Royale to rescue her. They discover that the casino is located atop a giant underground base run by the evil Dr. Noah, who turns out to be Sir James's weak-kneed nephew Jimmy Bond (Woody Allen). Dr. Noah/Jimmy reveals that he plans to use biological warfare to make all women beautiful and kill all men over 4-foot-6-inch (1.37 m) tall, leaving him as the "big man" who gets all the girls.


Then as now, I guess: Note the technological solution to their problems, and how everyone else seems to have to pay for it.

If the problem is that's there's not enough willing females to demanding, violent men... why don't we get rid of the violent, demanding men? They're the real troublemakers causing wars and screaming that they can't get laid.

Instead of producing more girls for jerks to f*ck (honestly, reproduction has little to do with their desires), let's get rid of the jerks. It would be so much easier and make the world so much quieter.

-m

  • 1
?

Log in