​Here’s a hypothesis to be tested: Title IX is helping women’s sports.  Sort of.
It may be that all the Title IX time, energy and money going into women’s sports is not helping women except for giving most of them a chance to say “You go, girl!” 

It looks much like it benefits the minority who are good at sports and competition.  That is to say, it mostly serves masculinized women.  It’s not just bone structure, pelvic dimensions and the 2D:4D ratio, marking these women as atypical. It’s also behavioral differences; they may have more typically masculine traits of competitiveness.  Very useful in sports.

This is just a hypothesis so far.  But a rough check would be to find out who the top female athletes choose for intimate partners: Are they disproportionately sleeping with other women?
If the hypothesis checks out it would show that the Title IX resources are being hijacked by a minority. 

The majority of women don’t benefit.
 Except as cheerleaders.  
How sexist is that?
​How fair is that?

       
There’s an industry based on what can be described the misandry axis.  Misandry is the hatred or dislike of men or boys.

Incidentally, the better class of prostitute in the title is not intended to refer to the evolving and artificially intelligent version s of sex robots that I’ve written about elsewhere, see the website: “The Robot Who Loved Me,” and the science fiction book “House of Clockwork Women.” 

​
And it definitely does not refer to the fictional stereotype; “hooker with a heart of gold.”
​
No, the axis of the misandry industry extends from Women’s Studies Departments in universities to domestic violence shelters in the inner cities.
Both ends of this axis seem, on the surface, to be drawing their incomes, and their influence, from the abuse of men. They are immensely protective of that money and that power. 

                                                                   Women’s Studies
Suggest a “Male Studies” program for a university and watch the defensive fireworks. (No, “Gender Studies” as sometimes offered is Women’s Studies with a different label.)  The possibility of balance in the curriculum is greeted with screams of pain.  Of course; at a stroke they would lose half their funding, along with all their scapegoats.

                                                                   Domestic Violence
At the other end of the misandry axis is the Women’s Shelter movement, which has as an article of faith that women don’t abuse.  They do, and at least as often as men.  (Bring that up in a conversation and watch those defensive fireworks. Don’t bother bringing up the research, your audience is now focused on getting you to shut up.)  
As an aside, a  part of the weird history of the research on women's share domestic violence is here.
  Restricting domestic violence intervention is to one gender is like putting all your police protection in the northern half of a town.  It might be said to work… for that part of town.

Women’s Studies exploit unhappy women.  In fact they create new ones every day.  So they sustain that condition.  
Domestic violence shelters exploit unfortunate women.  They refuse to prevent, they refuse to admit, any female contribution to domestic violence.  So they sustain that condition. 

In both of these situations, if effective methods of solving the problems were used, the problems would be reduced.  However the incomes and influence of the leaders would be reduced.

Prostitution exploits women who are both unhappy and unfortunate. 

So both ends of the misandry axis are forms of prostitution, dependent on extending the exploitation of women.  A more accurate term might be “procuring.”

Those who make their living in the misandry industry are in the position of doctors who specialize in a particular disease, unethical doctors who discover a cure, but a cure that would put them out of business.  Partial cures, or non-cures are more profitable.

Two out of these three forms of prostitution are legal in most states.  One of them is even taught in most states.

Procuring will never be an ethical business model. Not in any of these forms. Unfortunately it is profitable in all of these forms.
​
A strange outcome; that the hatred or dislike for men or boys winds up abusing women.

This puts a different light on these masculized women’s  personality type, going a ways to explain their insistence that gender is socially constructed.   (That is to say, their scientifically-unsupported idea that “masculine” and “feminine” behaviors are learned, or rather imposed on us, by the culture we live in.)    This is used as an argument that men that should be “reconstructed,” by which they mean trained to be more like them.

It is entirely possible that feminist activists believe in this social construction of gender because they personally felt imposed upon because they were masculized women.  What most of us call femininity wouldn’t have come easily to them. They felt a pressure to conform to gender norms. This is a level of social pressure the rest of us don’t get.  We came into the gender roles naturally, and the parts that we learn, we learn fairly easily. 

So the feminist activists may be right about gender roles being socially constructed… for themselves.  It’s very personal for them. 
If we care, we can look into cross cultural studies to see what males and females are like in the human family.   We can even find some of the same behavioral distinctions between the genders lower down in the primate family tree.  

“Social construction of gender roles” is an example of everybody in the parade being out of step with me.  It’s also an excuse to get really, obnoxiously angry at people who are not like them.

Of course, some interpretations of gender-appropriate behaviors are far too restrictive.  But passionate rants are  not likely to help.

There are a number of female Olympian athletes who have intimate partners who are also female.  It seems that in competitive sports they’ve taken advantage of their physical and mental differences.  They’re stronger and more competitive than most women.

Conclusion:  Use you differences, don’t  just to complain.

​Win, don’t whine.
 

The “feminist paradox” is the seemingly curious observation that most people are for gender equality but far fewer self-identify as feminists. 
It turns out that those women who try to set the feminist agenda don’t think like relatively normal men and women.  They don’t even look like us.   For a brief and refreshing bit of science look at the first page that comes up when googling “2D:4D feminism.”  The D’s here refer to digit lengths, the length of the first finger divided by the length of the ring finger.  Typical male hands have longer 4D lengths, therefore the resulting ratio is lower.  This indicates prenatal testosterone exposure.   It’s a generalization, but in general this number (when low) correlates with masculization- both in body structure and in personality.  Feminist activists tend to be masculized women.  More guy-looking and more “assertive.”  Hence uglier and angrier.  That is, angrier if they can’t figure out how to harness their atypical emotional structure.  (Opinion here: They might be great CEOs.)
Incidentally, it’s in the bones elsewhere as well.  Similar differences occur in pelvic structure. Fingers are easier and don’t involve x-ray exposure.
Unfortunately some feminist activists have harnessed their somewhat contradictory existence to lever themselves into positions of power.  They combine their male power-seeking tendencies with their female abilities to mount effective emotional arguments.  (Opinion here: Also the female capacity to evade responsibility by claiming victimization.)
The result of all this is bullying.  These masculinized women manage to combine the worst of middle school mean girls with worst of adolescent male bullies.  
With these as our examples -- the rest of us won’t call ourselves feminists.   

There's a  messy intermediate stage that has to be transitioned before we get to the world described in the book; "House of the Clockwork Women."

This is a look at the economics of rentable highly-interactive sex dolls. Otherwise known as  robohookers.  

Investment in expensive machines necessitates mass production of product or service. It doesn’t matter whether the product is blue jeans or the service is broadcasting. To justify high investment, turnover has to be high.  In this case, because of initial technical limitations, consumer expectations have to start out low. 
Considering the currently available services, these are low now.

Because of the intimate contact involved; intercustomer sanitation standards have to be high. 
Considering the currently available services, these are low now.

Most of the processing and control of the individual unit happens outside the unit.   This leaves the easily-replaced working units as simple and cheap, essentially mindless.
Insert your own comparison here.
​
Power limitations will require that the initial units be attached by an “umbilical,” probably at the back of the neck. Never unplugged, which means that the client comes to a central location for the service. This is not unheard of.

The technical challenge here is creating soft actuators that move like muscles beneath the artificial skin.  

The economic challenge is finding new jobs for the displaced sex workers. However, in the developed world, there’s an obvious exchange necessary: The corporations that create these devices have to be instrumental in creating the retraining programs.  

Soft robots are up and coming, particularly for assisting in eldercare.   The robohooker industry will draw a lot from soft robot technology. There are regions and countries with bad human rights records where no share of the profits are likely to go toward rehabilitating traditional sex workers;  it's cheaper just to displace them and let them fend for themselves.  
​
Earlier and cruder technology is likely to be implemented in the less fastidious markets.  After all, present actuators include pneumatic devices, this means that internal "musculature" can be given to what are essentially inflatable sex dolls, the actuators work between the plastic bones and the silicone skins. The actuators are a complicated bunch of plastic bags with connectors and with remotely operated valves. Everything outside the skeleton can be discarded and replaced at the end of its life cycle. New month: New woman. (Or the very rough equivalent.)

Curiously,  this is both an appalling vision and a step upward for a  neglected class of women.


​Adam Abels