Do women take technological progress for granted?

Some time ago I came across radical feminist literature from the 1970s or 1980s, in which it was claimed that we could now kill off all men, except for a few to maintain infrastructure because all the important inventions have been made, or something along those lines. I obviously do not condone killing off either one of the sexes. Furthermore, I am rather taken aback by such obvious ignorance. I did not think much about this, but I recently recalled it at a fitting moment.

For background, I should add that I am a proponent of automation. I find the technological aspects even more fascinating than philosophical ruminations that seem to be geared towards using the success of automation as yet another future failed attempt of socialism, this time in the form of universal basic income. The robots are taking all our jobs, we may as well just get paid for doing nothing, right, commies? On that note, there are two big groups that are drawn towards communism: women, and men who cannot compete. I leave reasoning about the female psyche and why it is drawn towards communism and an exuberant welfare state to you.

It is well established that women are more interested in people, while men are more interested in “things”. That is at least the popular messaging. It would be more correct to say that men are more interested in abstractions. This is directly relevant to our topic because if you can abstract a (repetitive) process and build a machine, you can replace a human being doing it. That is a level that seems to be hard to penetrate for women, no pun intended.

The inability of women to see beyond the concrete has often baffled me. One instance was when an ex-girlfriend and now also ex-wife asked me, while walking past a construction site, if building companies recruit workers locally. I chuckled and pointed her towards the containers on site, which are used for housing construction workers, many of them from abroad. At first she seemed embarrassed, but she quickly wanted to make the point that it can’t be the case that people would live there. Her argument was partly based on the fact that there were not all that many containers on site. Things slowly dawned on her when I pointed out to her that she is welcome to count the workers on site, and guess how many people are needed to physically construct a nondescript office building with a few storeys. Because she could not admit that she was wrong (or stupid), that did not go anywhere.

I had a similar encounter when I recently came across a video online showing two manufacturing robots in a sword fight. Maybe you have seen it. It is this one:

In case you don’t know it, ABB is one of the world’s leading manufacturers for industrial robots. Those robot arms are mainly used in assembly lines, for instance in the automotive industry. As you can see, the precision of those two robot arms is breathtaking. The two arms are choreographed so well that the tips of the swords stay in contact while they perform non-mirrored movements. I thought this was really impressive, and I thought about the enormous effort that had to be undertaken for this demo. The woman I sent that video to, whom I expected to find this at least noteworthy, was anything but impressed. Her reply was quick: “I watched this for 30 seconds now and all I can think of is, ‘What’s the point?'”

Not to bash that young woman unduly, but I find it quite shocking that there can be someone looking at a marvel of technology, shrug her shoulders and say, “What’s the big deal?” As a guy, you are probably in awe. Certainly, when I think of technology, I am in awe, and the more I understand it, the more in awe I am. There is so much around us that is absolutely incredible. Today, you have a supercomputer in your pocket, and what does the typical female do with it? Take a never-ending sequence of selfies. As I guy, I look at it and appreciate how far we have come in such a short amount of time.

When you talk to a young woman about technology, you get the impression that they think all of it as simply being there. It’s similar to the old joke about where the milk comes from — the supermarket. Similarly, electricity comes out of the power socket. For the modern female, and most certainly also for plenty of feminized men, iPhones come from the Apple store, ignoring the superhuman engineering and logistical challenges that had to be overcome, just so that your average Stacey can photoshop her pictures and put them on Instagram.

Did you like this article? Excellent! If you want to support what I am doing, then please consider buying my excellent books, the latest of which are Sleazy Stories II and Meditation Without Bullshit or donating to the upkeep of this site. If you want tailored advice, I am available for one-on-one consultation sessions.

9 thoughts on “Do women take technological progress for granted?

  1. It tends to be a general problem with leftist thinking. And it’s no wonder then that women want left.

    Every theory they come up with, every mode of thinking they have – always has a fault assumption. They always assume that individual in group x will continue doing y, even if they change up a bunch of variable.

    – Take taxes…
    – Leftist believe that no matter what you do to an ambitious business owner, and no matter how much you tax him, he will continue doing the same amount of business and continue hiring the same amount of people. It never even enter their mind that those things are a variable, not a constant.

    – Women always seem to think that “men pursuing women” is some sort of a fixed constant… that they can keep getting bitchier and bitchier and deliver less and less to men, and yet, men shouldn’t stop pursuing women.

    1. Yeah but the leftists want to tax businesses high everywhere so that business owners don’t evade to tax heavens. That’s their solution to “oh, he’ll stop doing it here and go somewhere else”.
      As you rightly pointed out they underestimate the option of mbusinesses or men stopping doing things AT ALL. And MGTOW is a proof for that. It seems that men don’t mind dying out if it’s not worth living.

      And women want global laws so that they can have the same rights everywhere and men can be shamed everywhere.
      They think in a toralitarian way.
      It’s a global revolution they envision, just like Karl Marx.

    2. There is always going to be a balance in the world. Even in the things that came close to a world government like the Mongol Empire or the British Empire we had localized laws and systems. Let alone many insurgencies and calls to free self governance. Therefore, asking for the entire world to have high taxes is a disgrace to education or rather the lack of history education. Good luck doing that feminists since, they can’t do it.

    3. Leftist can’t comprehend the concept “second order effects”.
      I like to compare their ideology of the naivety of a child.

  2. Women (and I suppose socialists too) take technology and other progress (like economic gains, political changes, freedoms) for granted.

    I mean, look at that ridiculous now-permanent “Fearless Girl” statue in Wall Street in New York. That is so symbolic of what these lefties and womyn are like. Protesting and complaining despite the fact that they live in (for now) the #1 economy, and all the comforts that capitalism has wrought.

    In real life, if there was really a live “fearless girl” standing in front of a bull, what would happen? That bull would gore her in an instant. That’s another dimension lefties and feminists fails to recognize: nature (be it human nature, human behavior or basic supply/demand in economics).

    While i hear the MGTOW refraint, “Enjoy the decline”, I don’t want to do that. I want to prepare for a world where we are going to be taxed without limit, success is NOT rewarded (because of taxes or tall poppy syndrome) or others get ahead because they are [insert gender/religion/ethnicity].

    Look at Google…they are now getting eaten from the inside out with their culture of virtue signalling. (For example, see this walkout: http://archive.is/iT1Fy )

    I suppose the only ‘decline’ I will enjoy is when these employees get replaced by machines. I mean, all these ‘victims’ are really a threat to a company’s bottom line. Why hire humans (especially women who suffer harassment /s ) when AI and robots can do it cheaply and endlessly?

  3. Women are like little children. They take everything for granted. I think they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that they simply cant handle freedom. They are just not capable of handling the responsibility that comes with it. That’s why they shouldn’t have equal rights to men. They should have rights in balance with the responsibilities that they can carry. Thats closer to those of a child than men.

  4. I’m not impressed by the robot video either, because I work in the automotive industry and work with robots.

    It’s extremely difficult to replace a human being by a robot, because using a robot makes only sense if tasks are repeatable. • A robot like that has six axes who are powered by electric motors. Yes they’re movements can be accurate, but most movements are interpolated and if the robot measurement lacks a few millimeter (because of weight, temperature, age, speed) the tip of the last axis strews. That’s a huge problem if you want to work extremely accurate.
    • Next your robot only executes a Programm that you gave/taught him before. He is not able to make his own decisions. That’s a huge problem as well, if for example two parts should be welded together and the parts have because of manufacturing conditions a tolerance of 2 millimeters. Your weld joint then does not exist and no one tells you, unless you have on your manufacturing line scrutiny ‘s who tell you there’s something wrong.
    • Last, one „naked“ robot costs you 50.000€. With tools, installation, programming and maintenance you have to pay 100k. Most workers are cheaper than that.

    1. I’d like to comment on the last point and that is that if anything, history has shown that technological progress makes tools cheaper over time and workers get more expensive.

      On a side note, I sometimes scratch my head about automation discussions, because often it seems to be a black or white debate, aka “automate it all” vs. “can’t replace humans”. The reality is that it’s gray and it has gone from light gray to dark gray over time.
      In Migros and Coop, two Supermarket chains in Switzerland, where you used to have 8 human operated cashiers, in the same space you have 2 human operated ones and 12 automated ones, where you can self check.
      That costs 2 persons to operate the “old style” ones and one person to observe the people self checking their groceries. She (yes, “she” – ain’t no sane guy do that job) can intervene should there be a problem or if she needs to do an age check if someone scans alcohol.
      Yes, you can’t replace humans, but the supermarket has the same volume of customers served by 20 instead of 8 machines, and has saved 60%+ in human capital. Is it perfect? No. Is it better? Hell yeah.

      These discussions are so ridiculous. It’s like automated trading. “Duhh, but muuhhh robot can’t trade Brexit. Humans are the better traders”. Yeah, but you can shut it off before Brexit or US elections. Any other event that caught the robot by surprise caught you by surprise as well. Humans didn’t see 15.01.2015 EURCHF coming either.
      But here’s why a robot is still superior bottom line: While humans sleep, the fucker still trades. And it adds up.

      Kinda perfect is not better than perfect if you look at a single production process. But since humans are far away from constantly being perfect, it does the trick. And let’s be honest, most humans are just average all of the time.
      So what you end up is a lot of stuff being automated and then there’s some high end shit that remains human-made. 99.9% of all knives are fully machine made. Then you got the katana shit and the other japanese knives, that’ll remain hand made and hence freakin expensive.
      Heck, I played a violin made in a fabric, and that was in the early 1990s. Does it come close to my 19th century Austrian hand made one by Martin Stoss? Hell no. But, here is the real question: Do 99% of aspiring players need to play a $40k violin? Nope. They can learn the ropes on a $800 piece of wood as well. Oh, and don’t get me started on the Stradivarius type of stuff, their myth has been debunked long time ago. Give a modern violin maker the same 500-700 year old wood and they’ll build even better violins than those that are on the market from that time, trading at $2mio plus. Actually a majority of those violins woul fail any final violin maker exam by today’s standards. But they got the old wood and that makes the sound.
      So again, machines beat humans most of the time. Betting on the moments that they don’t is a losing strategy long term, because it’s not made for mass consumption.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.