Science and Girls

Sexbots: Why Women Should Panic

One of the largely unremarked aspects of James Dewey Watson’s classic account of winning the Nobel Prize by discovering the structure of DNA is the undercurrent of sexual frustration.

In his book The Double Helix, Watson discusses his disappointment in the supposedly erotic film he went to see in Cambridge (UK), and the account of his scientific success leads to his expressing a hope that he might find a non-faculty type wife. Presumably he meant attractive rather than a bluestocking.

Elsewhere he explains, if I recall correctly, that life back in those days (the Fifties) allowed few exciting outlets for young men. He states that science was one of the few available outlets for the imagination.

As Milo argues in the piece cited above, bright young men today are as happy playing modern video games as they would be solving real scientific and technical problems.

Young women have increasingly chosen not to take up their part of the traditional social bargain. It is possible that men are now poised to drop their bundle too. What part the sexbots Milo discusses will play in this is hard to say. But as real women become increasingly unattainable and possibly risky to interact with for legal reasons, a lot of men might choose to opt out of the human mating game altogether.

Wooing women has always had elements of danger. But there are now so many legal mantraps involved in the process, including after the nuptials, that it has become hardly worth the risk.

The Alt-Right is surely driven in large part by socially disenfranchised young men. Its imagination, humour and iconoclasm are typically male.

My latest copy of The Economist has a piece on the Alt-Right. They get it wrong. I suspect as they have to grapple with it more seriously, they will come to understand it better. They will be forced to.



3 responses to this post.

  1. The Economist gets it wrong by design. Just like on immigration, race and a whole host of topics.

    No, the Economist is not confused, they are doing misdirection as always.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 24, 2016 at 1:40 pm

      The Economist has changed in recent times. I suspect the authorship is now younger and more female. Basically they are recruiting their writers from the equivalent of the best students at Oxford in courses like the famed PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics.)

      What this means is that The Economist has become not just economically liberal but also socially liberal. Their blind spots are precisely where the Alt-Right has its strengths. The Economist believes that people are basically rational economic units. They are perennially puzzled that women tend to work part-time in all nations. They can’t fathom why Africa lags economically. They are puzzled by the continuing strength of religion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: