• swlabr@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    The art is the way that it is because the artist made it that way. The image is not particularly sexual, and robot art can be woman-coded. If you want to project some misogynist angle onto some stock art that has no bearing on the article, that’s fine, I guess.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Oh, where to start.

      Sexy woman coded, perhaps, unless you’re saying that women who don’t have prominent breasts and what appears to be makeup aren’t real women

      But this is a drawing of a machine. Machines don’t have gender, biological or social or otherwise. Whoever created this image thought, consciously or not, “I’m going to make a picture of a robot, and I’m gonna make it a sexy woman robot.” Not just a “woman-coded” humanoid robot - because that can be done without playing heavy on the sexiness, right?

      So why? Why make a sexy woman robot? I ask again: Am I supposed to want to fuck it?

      • swlabr@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Sexy woman coded, perhaps, unless you’re saying that women who don’t have prominent breasts and what appears to be makeup aren’t real women

        Why are you conflating “real”ness with sexiness?

        But this is a drawing of a machine. Machines don’t have gender, biological or social or otherwise.

        This is actually incorrect. Gender is a social construct. Anything can have gender if (a) society agrees upon it.

        Whoever created this image thought, consciously or not, “I’m going to make a picture of a robot, and I’m gonna make it a sexy woman robot.” Not just a “woman-coded” humanoid robot […]

        You have not proved this. Also, which is it? Machines don’t have gender, or this machine is a sexy woman robot? Your analysis and discourse are inconsistent and lacking.

        because that can be done without playing heavy on the sexiness, right?

        Again, the image is not particularly sexy. Just having large breast-analogs in the picture doesn’t make it sexy, unless you’re a stereotypical teenage boy.

        So why? Why make a sexy woman robot? I ask again: Am I supposed to want to fuck it?

        You have not earned the right to ask these questions.

        • David Gerard@awful.systemsOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          here’s another version of the same sketch

          a machine is constructed in the form of a pretty lady to present you with a magical answer and the answer is a lie too

          and the hand is empty and the style is retro pop art of a comforting past that never existed

          now what could the incredibly obvious symbolism here mean, why all these choices

          hope our poster never goes to an art gallery, could be fatal

          • bitofhope@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            2 days ago

            I don’t get it. It’s like you’re saying the sexy robot woman is a representation of seductive futuristic promises of a problematic technology. I don’t see how that ties into the article at all.

      • jonhendry@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Are you saying that women who don’t have prominent breasts or wear makeup aren’t sexy?