SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Last month, in an interview with The Times, Illy Eckstein, chief executive of Robin Labs, creators of a virtual assistant and satnav known as 'Robin', said that 5% of interactions in their database are classified as "clearly sexually explicit".
Trawling the Internet for evidence of the above I discovered a Reddit forum titled: 'I masturbate to Siri and I feel disgusting'. The poster says he's a 20 year old male, who started talking to Siri sexually as a joke before realising that "it really turned me on."
The phenomenon clearly has farther reaches than one sole forum post. VA creators and chatbot companies predict such interactions and put algorithmic safeguards in place to deter feelings of emotional and sexual attachment from costumers.
Earlier this year one of the key writers for Microsoft's Cortana, Deborah Harrison, revealed at the Virtual Assistant Summit in San Francisco that "a good chunk of the volume of early-on inquiries" regarded Cortana's 'sex life' adding, "That's not the kind of interaction we want to encourage."
+1 Funny and Sad?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:29AM
Misogynists who have never had a date.
Why would misogynists want to date women?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:06AM
Who else are they going to smack around and get to make sandwiches for them?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:38AM
Well, sudo of course. ;-)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:00AM
> Why would misogynists want to date women?
Hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are two parts that make up the whole of misogyny. Like a japanese anime robot formed of two opposing parts coming together to make something bigger than either of them.
If you’re a “good” woman who meets expected gender norms — who has warm feminine charms, who maintains strict beauty standards, whose ambitions are focused on home and hearth — you will be rewarded with affection, protection, and praise. But step outside those norms, and you risk being labeled as one of the “bad” girls who are abused and scorned only because they deserve it.
It’s a tidy little cycle. Benevolent sexism is supposed to protect women from hostile sexism, and hostile sexism is supposed to keep women in line with the ideals of benevolent sexism.
While benevolent sexism may put women on a pedesta, it’s a very narrow pedestal that’s easy to fall off of. This is the whole reason that our age-old “Madonna versus whore” dichotomy exists in the first place: If women can be separated into good girls and bad, and only bad girls get punished, it justifies male dominance and absolves men of blame for treating women unfairly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 17 2016, @01:13PM
If women can be separated into good girls and bad, and only bad girls get punished, it justifies male dominance and absolves men of blame for treating women unfairly.
Great theory. Doesn't explain the female-side of misogyny though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @04:24PM
> Doesn't explain the female-side of misogyny though.
Male dominance actually requires a pretty delicate balance. If men want to maintain the control over women they’ve enjoyed for thousands of years, and continue their species, and satisfy their desires for heterosexual love and companionship, they can’t just use brute force. They need women to actually like them and not resent their dominance.
And so a compromise emerged — or at least a “protection racket,” like when the Mafioso tells the businessman he’d hate to see his nice shop burn down, so why don’t they make a deal.
The basic agreement is that as long as women cater to men’s needs, men will protect and cherish women in return. If women have few good options for independent success, this is a pretty good deal — which explains why in more overtly sexist societies where women have fewer opportunities, cross-national studies show that women endorse benevolent sexism at even higher rates than men do.
When women are under threat, their benevolent sexism scores go up. Specifically, showing women survey data about men’s hostile sexism makes women more likely to endorse benevolent sexism out of psychological self-defense. It may be ironic to turn to men for protection from male hostility, but it’s how the cycle works.
This also helps explain why so many women hold sexist biases against women. If women themselves enforce gender norms and punish deviants, it reinforces the social order that guarantees them protection. And it separates them from the “bad” women who are deemed unworthy of that protection.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @04:47PM
If men want to maintain the control over women they’ve enjoyed for thousands of years, and continue their species, and satisfy their desires for heterosexual love and companionship, they can’t just use brute force.
Except the psychology of sadomasochism refutes this entirely. Even Nazi guards used a combination of brutality and very measured affection to maintain control. Had to describe western women as brutalized in any fashion.
like when the Mafioso tells the businessman he’d hate to see his nice shop burn down, so why don’t they make a deal.
And yet women seem to use those very same systems- the courts, the law, to demand further protections when obviously they are fully capable of protecting themselves.
The basic agreement is that as long as women cater to men’s needs, men will protect and cherish women in return.
I have yet to see blowjobs on demand, which at least when I conceptualize my One, True Patriarchy would be a foundational principle.
which explains why in more overtly sexist societies where women have fewer opportunities, cross-national studies show that women endorse benevolent sexism at even higher rates than men do
Except those same countries, Iran for example, has higher instance of women in the sciences and military. In fact, when you compare to western countries like Sweden, you'll find women gravitating towards what's viewed as more traditionally feminine fields, like healthcare since they are free to choose.
it separates them from the “bad” women who are deemed unworthy of that protection.
Except every single woman, even the slutty and mouthy ones, were saved before the men on the Titanic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @04:55PM
> Except every single woman, even the slutty and mouthy ones, were saved before the men on the Titanic.
Your post is so much random self-justification, but that last one takes the cake.
For one, it isn't even true. And two extrapolating from a single event under extreme circumstances when people's deep-seated conditioning kicks in is to miss the point. Absent any immediate proof of being "bad" women are assumed "good." That sort of situation is really the ultimate proof of how deeply ingrained benevolent sexism is in society.
You need to stop snorting those crushed up red pills, it feels good to disassociate yourself from reality, but in the long run its just rotting your soul.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @05:00PM
From wiki, Women and children first-
The phrase was popularised by its usage on the RMS Titanic.[10][page needed] The Second Officer suggested to Captain Smith, "Hadn't we better get the women and children into the boats, sir?", to which the captain responded: "women and children in and lower away".[11] The First and Second officers interpreted the evacuation order differently; one took it to mean women and children first, while the other took it to mean women and children only. Thus one of the officers lowered lifeboats with empty seats if there were no women and children waiting to board, while the other allowed a limited number of men to board if all the nearby women and children had embarked.[12] As a consequence, 74% of the women and 52% of the children on board were saved, but only 20% of the men.[13] Some officers on the Titanic misinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men from boarding the lifeboats.[14][15] It was intended that women and children would board first, with any remaining free spaces for men. Because not all women and children were saved on the Titanic, the few men who survived, like White Star official J. Bruce Ismay, were initially branded as cowards.[16]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @05:28PM
>>> Except every single woman, even the slutty and mouthy ones, were saved
>
> 74% of the women and 52% of the children on board were saved
In red pill land 74% is equal to 100%
You are so strung out on misogyny that you can't even get your red herrings right.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 17 2016, @05:21PM
Aaaaaaaand here's reason number...shit, what was it...2,664,986, I think? That I'm glad to be a lesbian. Ye flipping GODS.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:10PM
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:27PM
Its not a second theory. It is an explanation of how the "first" theory answers your question.
This is all really standard stuff, completely uncontroversial to people who have been researching it for decades.
The fact you can't even gish gallop it away is a good sign. Perhaps you are on the verge of popping that bubble you've been living in.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @03:53PM
Its not a second theory. It is an explanation of how the "first" theory answers your question.
I would normally call that moving the goalposts. I guess YMMV.
This is all really standard stuff, completely uncontroversial to people who have been researching it for decades.
I've heard this crap before, sure.
The obvious rebuttal here is that most of society treats "bad" women badly for different evolutionary reasons. From the male point of view, if a woman is sleeping with multiple partners then any kids she has have uncertain paternity and thus, has lesser value than a woman who stays faithful. Thus, behavior that values women with fewer sex partners has evolved. From the female point of view, a woman with multiple partners might (and has for evolutionary influence) steal their man. Behavior that would prevent that from happening has evolved to treating more promiscuous women badly.
Sure, there's a somewhat male-centric orientation here since it is basically the consequence of a fight over men with resources. We don't have to rationalize with paragraph after paragraph about how it's ultimately the fault of the males. The majority of the society, both male and female is doing it. There's no careful balance. There's no strategy of men to influence women to ostracize the promiscuous women. It's just evolution in action for what I agree are generally male-dominated societies and cultures which apparently are quite prevalent in our evolutionary past.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @03:58PM
The fact you can't even gish gallop it away
Funny how I was responding to walls of rationalizations with two posts, each a single sentence and I get accused of "gish galloping". Rule #3: always project, eh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @10:07AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @01:24PM
Likewise, there is a dichotomy of "bitches vs. friends", but the sexism narrative absolves women from any responsibility of unfavorable reaction when they act like a bitch.
It is also a tidy little cycle, where women can act like the former, but claim to be in the latter, and when the hypocrisy is pointed out, claim sexism.
(Score: 1) by an Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @05:03PM
Because, borderlines can't distinguish between simple assertiveness, enforcement of personal boundaries, and outright hatred, in this case of women.