Now that you’ve brought it up, I think I prefer a blend of your senses 2 and 3: the salient feature of a robot that I think comes through in the definition of fembot I put at the head of the post is a uniform single-mindedness (which is a necessary feature of robots) rather than the warrior aspect (which is not). It was an easy leap to associate the militarized robot with the militant feminist, but when all is said and done it’s an erroneous one, because radical feminists aren’t “militant” in the way that machines designed to kill are “militant.”

I’ve never read or seen The Stepford Wives, so it wouldn’t have occurred to me to use that term, but you’re quite right: in the blurry dichotomy I used, the “feminist” definition is the Stepford Wife, while the anti-feminist definition is the one I’d prefer to permanently enshrine under “fembot.” I don’t think I agree that “fembot” can be an adjective, but I’m curious as to what sort of personality is denoted by “stepford fembot” — I think it’s either a pure Stepford Wife or it’s a contradiction in terms (or a case of split personalities?).

Defining ‘fembot’ is a matter of etymological focus. Denotatively, ‘-bot’ sees little controversy (robot) but becomes a connotational rats-nest.

1) combative (focusing on the weaponized aspect)

2) blindly subservient (focusing on the single-objective programing)

3) cookie-cutter (focusing on the limited variety and customization allowed by mass-production)

‘Fem-’ could be rooted, denotatively, in ‘feminine’ or ‘feminist’.

Your preference is clear but you need a term to differentiate; to provide the other side of the coin. Such a term exists (and, frankly, I’m surprised you missed it): ‘Stepford Wife’.

Interesting…
‘Fembot’ finds use as a noun and an adjective whereas ‘stepford wife’ is the noun to ‘stepford’s adjective. (ie: ‘stepford employee’, “stepford husband’, etc.)

yet…
One could be a ‘stepford fembot’ but not a ‘fembot stepford wife’.