We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
1–10 of 92 posts
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#2If they wanted to avoid obscenity, they should have taken down all the toys and any sexist entertainment out there.
It just doesn't seem fair to this curly looking innovative toy.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#3Why are they playing the gender bias card here? It’s odd to take it back, but this clearly has nothing to do with gender. What a silly ploy for even more attention.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#4I’m trying to link the accusation of gender bias and LGBT rights with the act of conceding the Innovation Award. Looks like their reason is that “it does not fall under Robotics category” which the article debates well. But, what actions and indications lead to gender bias?
If I am a woman and I get rejected from a job, I don’t immediately start accusing the interviewer of gender bias. It hurts the cause for real issues when the noise in the social media is due to all kinds of baseless accusations.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#5I’m trying to link the accusation of gender bias and LGBT rights with the act of conceding the Innovation Award. Looks like their reason is that “it does not fall under Robotics category” which the article debates well. But, what actions and indications lead to gender bias? If I am a woman and I get rejected from a job, I don’t immediately start accusing the interviewer of gender bias. It hurts the cause for real iss…
https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/10/there-s-a-new-sex-robot-...
Did you read through the article? It's laughable for CES to claim that sex toys are somehow too "obscene" for it or are off topic.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#6I’m trying to link the accusation of gender bias and LGBT rights with the act of conceding the Innovation Award. Looks like their reason is that “it does not fall under Robotics category” which the article debates well. But, what actions and indications lead to gender bias? If I am a woman and I get rejected from a job, I don’t immediately start accusing the interviewer of gender bias. It hurts the cause for real iss…
I guess the argument is that if the only difference between two "robots" is the gender of their intended audience, and one gets banned, then that's prejudice.
Along the same lines as, if the only difference between two people doing the same job is their gender, and one gets paid more, then that's prejudice.
They're not wrong.
Of course, CES could argue that it's bad timing - that the new product came out just as CES started cleaning up. Maybe these male-oriented developments will be similarly disallowed. We'll have to wait and see. Still, terrible optics for CES and a bad decision all round.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#7Why are they playing the gender bias card here? It’s odd to take it back, but this clearly has nothing to do with gender. What a silly ploy for even more attention.
According to the article, they aren't allowed to exhibit their sex toy for women at CES, while a sex doll for men and VR porn targeted at men are on display.
There may be other explanations, but it does look like a bit of a double standard.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#8Why are they playing the gender bias card here? It’s odd to take it back, but this clearly has nothing to do with gender. What a silly ploy for even more attention.
[deleted]
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#9Why are they playing the gender bias card here? It’s odd to take it back, but this clearly has nothing to do with gender. What a silly ploy for even more attention.
Dear Larry,
It’s not because you can’t understand something that it isn’t happening. Please read carefully the article, or at least foldr’s comment.
Re: We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back
#10For those who didn't read the article... The author is claiming that their is a partial lewdness order among products so that normal products <= robotic vibrator <= vr porn. Therefore, if the lewdness threshold doesn't ban vr porn it cannot ban robotic vibrators either. But since robotic vibrators are banned and not vr porn, discrimination must be at play.