Fembots Everywhere

Via Ann Friedman, Alicia Rebensdorf considers the fembot phenomenon from a feminist perspective, with special attention to the Bionic Woman remake, the Heinecken fembot bots, and a new campaign for Svedka Vodka that I haven't actually seen. It's an interesting essay, but I think that in some ways it suffers from a failure to put fembots within the larger cultural category of representations of robots more generally.

From the R.U.R., the robot has almost universally been a locus of fear and anxiety rather than fantasy . . . the male robot's strength and endurance is a threat, not wish-fulfillment. Typically, the crux of the matter is that the robots betray their masters and take over the world (The Matrix, The Terminator, etc.) and robot stories that don't follow this scheme are so intensely against the grain that you get things like the movie version of I, Robot where, unable to fit Asimov's actual stories into our archetypes, they turn it into yet another robot rebellion tale.

I'm not sure if the right thing to say is that the fembot is a fantasy that serves as a counterpoint to the (presumptively male) robot, or else if consideration of the broader picture undermines the fembot-as-fantasy conceit, but I do think you need to consider the broader context. This is especially true insofar as these archetypes can coexist, as in the appearance of Priss, "a basic pleasure mode," in the midst of Blade Runner's tale of replicant rebellion.

Comments

I noticed that the article fails to mention Chris Cunningham's video for the Bjork song "All Is Full Of Love," of which the Svedka campaign is shamelessly derivative.

Posted by Barry Convex | October 1, 2007 12:08 AM

I'll grant that generally people think of robots negatively, and that is the prevailing archetype of them, but there are some counterexamples. A.I., for example, had robots that weren't really evil/frightening/malicious. Star Wars, of course, is another example of this counter-trend. But you are right about I, Robot: I can't imagine that the Isaac Asimov name puts asses in the seats in your local cineplex, and to use the title of one of his books for a film that has pretty much the opposite take on the whole technology thing as he did...that was a little bit bizarre. Of course, it wasn't as though anyone went to see that movie because of its messages about artificial intelligence.

Posted by Lev | October 1, 2007 1:11 AM

The robot rebellion thing was already a cliche when Asimov was writing in the 50's - that's why he came up with the Three Laws business, as a scaffolding for creating stories that weren't about battling evil upstart machines.

Posted by jimBOB | October 1, 2007 1:28 AM

from a feminist perspective

What IS the feminist perspective? If I measure it by the so called feminist blogs it mainly seems to be, "it's empowerful if I dress sexy, but oppressive if a male creates a sexy image of a woman."

If you keep the gender of the creator of the "sexy image" in mind, you can follow these three rules to determine what seems to be the feminist perspective:

1) Creator was male: BAD and OPPRESSIVE
2) Creator was female: Almost certainly EMPOWERFUL!
3) Creator was female but I still don't like it: BAD AND OPPRESSIVE AND THE CREATOR WAS A VICTIM OF THE PATRIARCHY.

I would be more impressed with Ann from Feministing and whomever from wherever if they would occasionally analyze why we see so many negative images of men in commercials these days. And frankly, usually white men at that.

Until I see some of that, pardon me if I think that "gender studies" are not.

Posted by blech | October 1, 2007 2:18 AM

A more interesting post from Ann demonstrating my three rules of the feminist perspective. Read all of the comments to understand why.

Peace Prize-winner, pin-up, what's the difference?

Posted by blech | October 1, 2007 2:53 AM

There's a personality difference between a robot girl and the bionic woman(women?). The bionic woman is just a super-hero like Wonder Woman.

Robot girls are child like and alien.

Posted by stm177 | October 1, 2007 4:14 AM

Robots suck, they're for twelve year olds, the only robot I ever liked was Xsara Picasso robot.

Posted by novakant | October 1, 2007 4:52 AM

In Japanese popular culture, robots are not threatening, they are wonderful.

I would guess that the Japanese look forward to dealing with robots because they are so sensitive to and distressed by other humans' emotional discomfort that having intelligent entities around without feelings to worry about hurting would come as a huge relief to the poor Japanese.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 1, 2007 5:47 AM

I always enjoy Matt's failed attempts to engage feminists in logical dialog, like Mr. Spock chatting up the patients at a PMS clinic.

Matt should learn from Alexander Hamilton's letter to a friend on what he was looking for in a wife: "In politics, I am indifferent what side she may be of (I think I have arguments that will easily convert her to mine.)"

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 1, 2007 6:00 AM

Shorter Steve Sailer: "I, for one, welcome our robot prostitutes!"

Posted by brooksfoe | October 1, 2007 6:52 AM

The Bionic woman is a woman, she isn't really a robot. She's just a human with artificial legs, an arm and some sensory organs. That IS wish fulfillment. The power of the robot is a threat, but fusing that strength and power to a human is clearly part of the desire of some to be more than human.

I never really liked examining things 'from the feminist perspective' or 'from the marxist perspective' when those things are individual works of art. To do so often means twisting the original artists conceptions and trying to make that work of art say what you want it to say, rather than what it was intended to say.

Posted by Soullite | October 1, 2007 8:40 AM

Blech, congratulations. You have noticed that people are self-serving hypocrites always trying to blame other people for their own faults. I have noticed a disturbing tendency among feminists to engage in that problematic logic.

If a woman does something wrong, men forced her to do it. If men do something wrong, it's because we're inherently evil and violent. If men go to college more often than women, it's a terrible tragedy. When women go to college more often than men, it's a sign of progress to be celebrated. When two drunk people have sex, the woman was violated terribly and has no responsibility for her actions while drunk, yet the male is completely liable for everything they both do. They not only ignore, but openly mock the aspects of our society that aren't preferential to men, and any issues men might have with women.

That's not shocking. The flaws they peg at 'men' are most often human flaws they themselves are subject to as well. The problem is their inability to accept any criticism whatsoever without fighting it tooth and nail.That's their business, but they should look at the fact that they have convinced very few of even their own gender to side with them.

Posted by Soullite | October 1, 2007 8:52 AM

Didn't the last story in I, Robot involve robots running the world and faking malfunctions to maintain their power?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict

Posted by crack | October 1, 2007 9:01 AM

And, FWIW, the movie was originally a screenplay unrelated to Asimov; the I, Robot stuff was grafted on later.

Posted by Matt Weiner | October 1, 2007 9:08 AM

Shorter Brooksfoe: "I am a pederast"

Posted by Juan | October 1, 2007 11:00 AM

"Typically, the crux of the matter is that the robots betray their masters and take over the world (The Matrix, The Terminator, etc.)"

Battlestar Galactica! Coincidently, 2 actors from the SciFi channel show are on the new Bionic Woman.

Posted by Peter K. | October 1, 2007 11:16 AM

Apparently not needing a "divine spark" in their human companions, can atheists also feel "love" for their fembots more easily than theists can, and enjoy them more easily and fully?

Posted by ferd | October 1, 2007 11:26 AM

Steve Sailer, I do wonder what Japanese cartoons you watch. I'm just sayin'.

I'm just disappointed no one's brought up the cyborg girl in Torchwood yet.

Posted by Persia | October 1, 2007 11:41 AM

Actually, three actors from Battlestar Galactica were in the pilot episode. There was also the guy who played the defense lawyer at the end of this past season.

Posted by JP | October 1, 2007 1:52 PM

SPOILER:

the robots DO take over the world in the book, I Robot. The difference is while one of the characters is horrified by this event, the other character welcomes the new robot overlords with open arms - robots are better than people after all. And some of the earlier stories provide evidence that indeed, maybe the robots ARE better than people. Also, the lay public doesn't even realize the robots have taken over.

Posted by wml | October 1, 2007 2:44 PM

Any discussion about the flaws in feminist logic as regards the analysis of any particular subject that argues that a) Feminists disagree, so they are stupid and should be ignored and b) they engage in behavior deisgned to avoid blame, like everyone else, so should be ignored, in turn ignores the following:

1) Feminists, like any other grouping, disagree about various things, they are not, well, a tobot collective. So yes, you will ahve women syaing "that is offensive to me." This should not be surprising, nor is it grounds for dismissal.

2) That we do, in fact, live in a sexist, patriarchial society, wherein women are, in fact, commidfied as sex objects. The counter to the fembot, after all, is not a malebot, but rather sexless, digital, inhuman, the Alien Other. i.e the usual "rebelling robots" are not clearly *male* so much as *not human*. But when robots *are* given a gender, it is almost always invariably female, and the image conveyed is almost always negative to any vision of women as rational and equal human beings.

Remember the second also clears up the first, each woman's experience of sexism and patriarchy is usually unique in its particulars, but they all rely, as the strongest arguments here critiquing the feminist critique rely, on demeaning women's capacity for rational argument and the validity of their opinions.

Posted by Chilango2 | October 1, 2007 3:24 PM

They are claiming that feminists are rarely interested in rational counterarguments, not that women in general are irrational.

Posted by ad | October 1, 2007 5:44 PM

I definitely want to second what "ad" says above. It goes further in fact (at least for me). It's not "feminists that are not interested in a rational argument", it's what we consider "modern mainstream feminists". The feminists that identify themselves with a "minor movement" be it radfem, equity, lesbian, marxist, ... are much more logically consistent and open to rational dialog.

That we do, in fact, live in a sexist, patriarchial society, wherein women are, in fact, commidfied as sex objects.

Poor whiny baby. Like we haven't learned since 1970 that men aren't commodified as sex objects as well, and like we haven't explored how much of women's behavior is not done for men, but for themselves or other women. (That includes of course dressing up. Which Modern Feminists still blame men for, but then they say, "we can dress anyway we like and you shouldn't look at us, because we are dressing for ourselves!" This is called, having your cake and shoving it in your mouth too.

The counter to the fembot, after all, is not a malebot, but rather sexless, digital, inhuman, the Alien Other. i.e the usual "rebelling robots" are not clearly *male* so much as *not human*. But when robots *are* given a gender, it is almost always invariably female, and the image conveyed is almost always negative to any vision of women as rational and equal human beings.

Proof please.

I would say the vast numbers of Robots people are familiar with are either explicitly male, or male in terms of voice or behaviors.

Look for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_robots_and_androids

So Rule 4, I am a feminist and I don't believe what the other feminist says, WE ARE MULTITUDES.

Yes, like I asked earlier, WHAT IS THE FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY?

It mainly seems to be, "HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE."

One finds disagreements and tensions amongst liberals, libertarians, and conservatards, but not like the huge (and often petty) disagreements amongst the feminists that are often explained away with the "we are multitudes" argument. But 99% of the multitudes also claim to be modern mainstream 3rd wave feminists, and are not identifying themselves as rad fems, equity fems, 2nd wave fems.

It's because there is no underlying philosphy.

The Onion remarked on this much better than I:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/women_now_empowered_by_everything
Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does

It used to be, "eliminate gendered roles for everyone", and you can still find that in the "libertarian" feminists, or the iFeminists, or the "equity feminists". For Modern Mainstream Feminists, the philosphy is much more along the lines of "We won, we have our demands, kiss my ass. Are you looking at my Ass? You are an pig. You are not looking at my ass? You are a slut shamer."

Now Matthew claims to be a Harvard Philosopher, it would be good of Matthew to revisit his gender studies courses and look at the current research and the empirical evidence and examine the blogs and tell us what the underlying philosophy of modern mainstream feminism is.

Maybe Matthew can just find this Patriarchal Conspiracy that has been claimed for so long, but that no one has ever found.

Cause it sure ain't equity.

Posted by blech | October 1, 2007 7:17 PM

Shorter Blech: ZOMG what about the MENZ!!!!

Posted by Chet | October 1, 2007 8:18 PM

Shorter Blech: Gender Parity is good for all living creatures.

Shorter Chet: Except the MENZ!!!

Help me out with that one Chet. How is it that in the span of 30 years, feminism went from liberating everyone from gendered roles, to objectively favoring women over men to the point where various feminists and feminist bloggers have adopted a slogan that tries to shame people that would point that out?

So yes, Chet, what about the men? What is it about Y Chromosome that allows men to be collectively discriminated against in ways that we would never stand still for against other groups?

Or Chet, consider Wendy Kaminer, Feminist and ACLU member:

My notions of justice require that we treat people as individuals and that we don't use sex as a predictor of character or behavior any more than we use race."

-Wendy Kaminer

Tell me Chet, why your notion of justice differs from Wendy Kaminer's? What blog did you pick up "What about the menz" from?

Posted by Blech | October 1, 2007 9:27 PM

as in the appearance of Priss, "a basic pleasure mode," in the midst of Blade Runner's tale of replicant rebellion.

The replicants in Blade Runner aren't robots!

Posted by hey | October 1, 2007 10:16 PM

Nexus 6. Roy Batty. Incept date 2016. Combat model. Optimum self-sufficiency. Probably the leader. This is Zhora. She's trained for an off-world kick-murder squad. Talk about beauty and the beast, she's both. The fourth skin job is Pris. A basic pleasure model. The standard item for military clubs in the outer colonies. They were designed to copy human beings in every way except their emotions. The designers reckoned that after a few years they might develop their own emotional responses. You know, hate, love, fear, anger, envy. So they built in a fail-safe device.

Posted by Bryant | October 1, 2007 10:32 PM

Commerce, is our goal here at Tyrell. More human than human is our motto. Rachael is an experiment, nothing more. We began to recognize in them strange obsession. After all they are emotional inexperienced with only a few years in which to store up the experiences which you and I take for granted. If we gift them the past we create a cushion or pillow for their emotions and consequently we can control them better.

Posted by Eldon Tyrell | October 1, 2007 10:34 PM

All of these replicants were objectified and essentialized down to their basic function, and all were treated as subhuman slaves. How does Priss being a pleasure model differ in any way from Roy Batty being a basic muscle model?

Posted by Rick Deckard | October 1, 2007 10:36 PM

Quite, but they aren't robots, in the sense that there isn't a function from inputs to outputs. In other words, they have free will.

Posted by hey | October 1, 2007 11:19 PM

Free will? Replicants were used Off-World as slave labor, in the hazardous exploration and colonization of other planets.

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die.

Posted by Roy Batty | October 1, 2007 11:29 PM

How is it that in the span of 30 years, feminism went from liberating everyone from gendered roles, to objectively favoring women over men to the point where various feminists and feminist bloggers have adopted a slogan that tries to shame people that would point that out?

Um, lemme think. This is just off the top of my head, here but - how about because it hasn't done any of that?

You can whallop around the strawfeminist all you like, Blech, but it doesn't change the fact that you simply don't know what you're talking about, and your dystopian fantasy world where men are an endangered species suffering under the yoke of our Vagina Overlords simply bears no relationship to the real world, where us men benefit from the up-side of nearly every coin.

In an age dominated by "equal work, more pay" and where a man has nearly complete license to rape so long as the victims are drunk and slutty, it's simply ridiculous to talk about "male oppression."

Oh, and incidentally - I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.

Posted by Chet | October 1, 2007 11:31 PM

Free Will! Don't talk to me about Free Will! Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway so I don't know why I even bother to say it. Oh god, I'm so depressed!", and "Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they get me to take you down to the bridge. Call that free will? 'Cos I don't."

Posted by Marvin the Paranoid Android | October 1, 2007 11:31 PM

Sorry Chet, it's you who are woeful in our history or to the feminist movement.

30 years ago, feminism set forth to free us all from gender roles. Today, 3rd wave feminism has abandoned that goal to the equity feminists. Feel free to look that up. Today's 3rd wave sex positive feminist is all about the vagina, and that can be seen many ways.

Here is one objective way to determine one facet of who is oppressing whom.

Feminists claim that family courts are biased in favor of fathers.

Fathers claim that family courts are biased in favor of mothers.

Karen DeCrow, former head of NOW agrees that shared custody used to be EXACTLY what feminists wanted. Now, though, NOW supports only sole custody, and advocates against any law that supports a rebuttable presumption of joint shared custody.

http://www.glennsacks.com/now_at_40.htm

Fathers' groups call on the courts to assume a rebuttable presumption of joint custody.

So Chet, using your bean, if Mainstream Feminists are calling for sole custody, and fathers are calling for shared custody, and Feminists USED to call for shared custody, what does that tell you about:

A) What the bias is in the court
B) How Mainstream feminism has changed since the 70s?

Which feminists call for shared custody? The equity feminists. Not the mainstream feminists.

Equal work, more pay? You mean like in NYC, where women are paid more than men?

Complete license to rape? Just what are you talking about?

You've seen things no one will believe? I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY!!!! You definitely see things that no one will believe.

Regardless Chet, I await your response to Wendy Kaminer, why your feelings toward justice means that it is okay to treat people as groups and not as individuals and why it is okay to use sex as a predictor of behavior.

Posted by Blech | October 1, 2007 11:54 PM

Feel free to look that up.

Sorry, but I loaned out my copy of "Strawfeminist arguments for male rights activists." Can you be more specific?

Ah, right. Glenn Sacks. Now there's a source I can trust - the guy who's making a career driving a feminist backlash by endlessly harping the handful of situations where a man has suffered at the hands of the law's attempt to rectify a serious problem of discrimination against women, all the while ignoring the mountain of instances where women continue to be denied basic rights.

Sorry, no thanks. After Glenn's little movement did everything they could to shield a rapist and murderer from justice there's simply nothing he could have to say that I'd be interested in.

Posted by Chet | October 2, 2007 1:02 AM

Oh do dish about Glenn, Chet. Please tell me when and where he did that.

Handful of situations? Mountains of instances? Sources and citations please....

In the meantime stop evading the issue.

Chet, are you familiar with Benjamin Franklin? Along with our other forefathers, he founded our country based on the notion that it was better than one hundred innocent people go free than to jail one innocent person.

Can you explain why you disagree with a) Wendy Kaminer, b) Karen DeCrow, and c) Benjamin Franklin?

Why do men rate as the only people in the Chetoverse that it is legal and a good thing for all right thinking Chetties to discriminate against, which is what you are saying when you acknowledge the fuckups but dismiss them as a handful.

Is it because we must treat the menz as a collective entity suitable for discrimination because that will somehow make up for discrimination against women? Because two wrongs make a right? Or because Chet, a privileged white guy, has decided that since he can handle the economic discrimination, that all men should be able to handle that?

Gosh Chet, you're so sensitive.

So once again Chet:

A) Tell me more about Glenn Sacks shielding a rapist
B) Tell me more about why you disagree with Franklin, Decrow, and Kaminer on individual justice and individual rights?

Posted by Blech | October 2, 2007 1:18 AM